linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.4 088/125] ser_gigaset: fix deallocation of platform device structure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <57FF4AD1.2040908@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:50:25 +0800
From:   Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>
To:     Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>, <lizf@...nel.org>,
        <stable@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.4 088/125] ser_gigaset: fix deallocation of platform
 device structure

On 2016/10/13 16:11, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 10:52 +0800, Zefan Li wrote:
>> On 2016/10/12 20:52, Paul Bolle wrote:
>>> There has been a follow up for this fix. I'll have to dive into my
>>> archive to see why that was needed.
>>>
>>> It was complicated, because there has been a short period in which this
>>> fix was correct. Something like that, I'm speaking from memory.
>>> (Perhaps Tilman's memory is less imperfect.)
>>>
>>> I'll try get back to this shortly (in a day or so).
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for looking into this.
> 
> So what I think you also need _on top of_ this patch:
> - commit 8aeb3c3d655e ("ser_gigaset: remove unnecessary kfree() calls
> from release method"), for context changes; and
> - commit 8d2c3ab44456 ("ser_gigaset: use container_of() instead of
> detour"), the proper fix.
> 
> I could not get v3.4 to build _at all_ on my current Fedora 24 machine.
> (v3.4 was probably released when Fedora 16 was still shiny and new.)
> Lack of coffee? So I've only visually inspected these three commits on
> top of v3.4.112. Is that acceptable to you?
> 

Yeah, I'll take it from here. Thanks!