[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151208221657.71fd0d71@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 22:16:57 +0000
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
syzkaller@...glegroups.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Karsten Keil <isdn@...ux-pingi.de>,
isdn4linux@...tserv.isdn4linux.de,
gigaset307x-common@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ser_gigaset: fix up NULL checks
> Should we backport this all the way to v2.6.32 (currently the oldest
> stable tree)?
We need to be able to explain how the case being tested can occur, then
explain the situation in which it actually prevents a race condition.
If nobody can do that then it shouldn't be backported because its change
without value and just risk.
The right fix as far as I can see is to remove the tests although
WARN_ON() combined with your tty->ops change might be safer.
> It's pretty obvious that this should have been part of commit
> f34d7a5b7010 ("tty: The big operations rework"). That being said, these
It ahould probably have been fixed around the same time or in one of the
tty locking reviews, but drivers/isdn and net/irda weren't traditionally
part of the general tty maintenance but handled separately/
> test puzzle me. It's not obvious why they're needed. Ie, can the null
> dereferences they try to catch really happen? But I can try to figure
> out that in the future, if I ever feel the urge to do so. Anyhow:
>
> Acked-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Nacked-by: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists