On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 07:08:57AM -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > Hmmm Great find..... > A perfect example of the bug that was quietly hiding > under our noses all these years.... Indeed. I'm actually still surprised why I haven't found it in the past. > > >> if (ppc > pr->performance->state_count) > > > >BTW I'm wondering if this check should be : > > if (ppc >= pr->performance->state_count) > >> goto out; > > > > Yes. I think this should change to >= as well. > Otherwise indexing states with this ppc can go out of bounds. > Updated. Correct bound checking from the value returned from _PPC method. Signed-off-by: Bruno Ducrot <ducrot@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- linux-2.6.19-rc6/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c 2006/11/21 10:18:39 1.1 +++ linux-2.6.19-rc6/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c 2006/11/21 16:28:04 @@ -83,10 +83,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_ppc_notifier(s goto out; ppc = (unsigned int)pr->performance_platform_limit; - if (!ppc) - goto out; - if (ppc > pr->performance->state_count) + if (ppc >= pr->performance->state_count) goto out; cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, 0, -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
