Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | Date | Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:37:45 -0800 | | From | Andrew Morton <> | | Subject | Re: [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
|  |