linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: cumana_2: Fix different dev_id between 'request_irq()' and 'free

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

Date:   Sat, 30 May 2020 12:41:40 +0200
From:   Marion & Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: cumana_2: Fix different dev_id between
 'request_irq()' and 'free_irq()'

Le 30/05/2020 à 11:43, Russell King - ARM Linux admin a écrit :
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 09:35:55AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> The dev_id used in 'request_irq()' and 'free_irq()' should match.
>> So use 'host' in both cases.
>>
>> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
> This is itself wrong.  cumanascsi_2_intr() requires "info" as the devid.
> Either cumanascsi_2_intr() needs changing to use shost_priv(host) along
> with this change, or free_irq() needs changing to use "info".

My bad.

I've only looked at the difference of the dev_id for the 2 functions, 
not at the usage of it with the function registered by 'request_irq'. 
This one is obviously correct, or the driver would have some problems 
somewhere.
I don't know why have chosen to change request_irq and not free_irq.

So obvious. I'm a little embarrassed and will send a v2.

Thx for the quick reply and review.

All the 3 patches being in "/drivers/scsi/arm/", do you prefer only 1 
patch for the 3, or separated as I've done so far?

CJ

> Likely the same for the other patches, I haven't looked.
>