lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Initialize pointer on request_firmware
    On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 07:54:06PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
    > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:18:29AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
    > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:23:47AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
    > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:55:15PM -0300, Lucas C. Villa Real wrote:
    > > > > Hello, folks,
    > > > >
    > > > > I've seen some kernel oopses when suspending my machine. The problem comes from isight_firmware, which assumes that, on error, a call to request_firmware() will initialize the provided pointer to the firmware image to NULL.
    > > > >
    > > > > The patch below fixes the isight_firmware side of the problem and also ensures that request_firmware() always sets the pointer to NULL on such cases (it currently does that for all except one situation).
    > > > >
    > > > > Signed-off-by: Lucas C. Villa Real <lucasvr@gobolinux.org>
    > > > >
    > > > > --- linux-3.0.4/drivers/base/firmware_class.c.orig 2011-09-21 21:03:01.000000000 -0300
    > > > > +++ linux-3.0.4/drivers/base/firmware_class.c 2011-09-21 21:03:13.000000000 -0300
    > > > > @@ -523,6 +523,7 @@ static int _request_firmware(const struc
    > > > >
    > > > > if (WARN_ON(usermodehelper_is_disabled())) {
    > > > > dev_err(device, "firmware: %s will not be loaded\n", name);
    > > > > + *firmware_p = NULL;
    > > > > return -EBUSY;
    > > > > }
    > > >
    > > > Looks like f45f3c1f3f616 needs backporting to stable, if it hasn't
    > > > happened yet.
    > >
    > > What stable tree? That patch was in the 2.6.36 release, so 3.0-stable
    > > doesn't need it, right?
    >
    > Judging by the diff lines above, 3.0.4 doesn't seem to have it. Wait,
    > lemme check... uh no, I can't, the damn k.org thing is still down :-(.

    The patch was in the 2.6.36 kernel, so by nature of that, 3.0 will also
    have it, right?

    > > > Oh, and then there's caca9510ff4e5 too which adds this
    > > > exit path to the goto out label as the rest of the function.
    > >
    > > But that was only due to other problems.
    >
    > That second one adds the goto thing to the "out:" label where the
    > firmware_p gets NULLed. IOW, it prepares the code for f45f3c1f3f616.
    >
    > Does that make more sense now?

    Nope, sorry, still confused :)

    How about, what patches are needed for the 3.0-stable kernel tree in
    order to resolve these issue? Git commit ids please.

    thanks,

    greg k-h


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-09-22 20:07    [W:0.023 / U:0.916 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site