Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:24:24 -0500 | | From | Jeff Garzik <> | | Subject | Re: linux-next: dock_link_device is oopsy |
| |
On 02/18/2012 02:57 PM, Holger Macht wrote: > On Sa 18. Feb - 10:46:04, Hugh Dickins wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Holger Macht wrote: >>> How about that one? >> >> It's more broken than that. Here's my attempt. It boots on the >> systems with dock_station_count 0, and it boots on my laptop with >> dock_station_count 2; but I don't actually have any docking station, >> so it still doesn't test very much (dock is 0 after the loop). > > Well, there doesn't have to actually exist a physical dock station (or > bay device) for dock_station_count to be> 0. It just tells that the > ACPI objects are present and thus the system is capable of it. > > So does this function actually also break on your laptop and you're > getting the oops there, too? > >> I have no idea if what goes on in the loop is correct, but it looks >> to me as if (as predicted) there's further breakage, that it would >> have been writing beyond the end of what it allocated if I did have >> a docking station. >> >> Hugh >> >> [PATCH] dock: fix bootup oops and other dock_link breakage >> >> dock_link_device() and dock_unlink_device() should bail out early >> to avoid oops on zero-length kmalloc() when dock_station_count is 0. >> >> But isn't there an off-by-one in that kmalloc() length anyway? >> An extra NULL appended at the end suggests so. >> >> Rework the ordering with gotos on failure to fix several issues. >> >> And presumably dock_unlink_device() should be presenting the same >> interface as dock_link_device(), with NULL returned when none found. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins<hughd@google.com> > > Fine with me.
So, just to be clear, the preferred patch is Hugh's, and I should drop your earlier proposed fix found in this thread?
And what about that warning?
Need to fix up linux-next or temporarily drop this patchset from linux-next.
Jeff
|  |