lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] wusb: Use sizeof struct rather than pointer
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:51:14 +0100
Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com> wrote:

> The sizeof the struct should be used rather than sizeof the pointer
>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> Unless I am mistaken?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c b/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c
> index 4516c36..857f6e9 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c
> @@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ int wusb_dev_sec_add(struct wusbhc *wusbhc,
>
> result = usb_get_descriptor(usb_dev, USB_DT_SECURITY,
> 0, secd, sizeof(struct usb_security_descriptor));
> - if (result < sizeof(secd)) {
> + if (result < sizeof(*secd)) {
> dev_err(dev, "Can't read security descriptor or "
> "not enough data: %d\n", result);
> goto out;

ick, code's a bit of a mess.

This:

--- a/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c~wusb-use-sizeof-struct-rather-than-pointer
+++ a/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c
@@ -205,15 +205,15 @@ int wusb_dev_sec_add(struct wusbhc *wusb
const void *itr, *top;
char buf[64];

- secd = kmalloc(sizeof(struct usb_security_descriptor), GFP_KERNEL);
+ secd = kmalloc(sizeof(*secd), GFP_KERNEL);
if (secd == NULL) {
result = -ENOMEM;
goto out;
}

- result = usb_get_descriptor(usb_dev, USB_DT_SECURITY,
- 0, secd, sizeof(struct usb_security_descriptor));
- if (result < sizeof(secd)) {
+ result = usb_get_descriptor(usb_dev, USB_DT_SECURITY, 0, secd,
+ sizeof(*secd));
+ if (result < sizeof(*secd)) {
dev_err(dev, "Can't read security descriptor or "
"not enough data: %d\n", result);
goto out;
_
at least makes things consistent.

But I wonder if the code will still work. Because we then go on to do

secd_size = le16_to_cpu(secd->wTotalLength);
secd = krealloc(secd, secd_size, GFP_KERNEL);

which implies (to me) that the thing we read from the device might
indeed have been smaller than we expected, in which case the
newly-fixed check will cause a failure.

That's probably not the case, but it needs checking by someone who
knows what's going on here, please




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-24 01:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and my Meterkast|Read the blog