On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:20:29 -0700 Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.Lu@xxxxxxx> wrote: > [PATCH] x86: check boundary in count/setup_resource called by get_current_resources > > need to check info->res_num less than PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES, so > info->bus->resource[info->res_num] = res will not beyond of bus resource array > when acpi resutrn too many resource entries. > Isn't this a bit of a problem? It sounds like PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES is to small for that system? If so, some sort of dynamic allocation might be needed. > > Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > @@ -77,9 +77,13 @@ count_resource(struct acpi_resource *acp > struct acpi_resource_address64 addr; > acpi_status status; > > + if (info->res_num >= PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES) > + return AE_OK; > + > status = resource_to_addr(acpi_res, &addr); > if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) > info->res_num++; > + > return AE_OK; > } grump. I don't know why people like a blank line before `return': it's just a waste of screen space. And the surrounding code in arch/x86/pci/acpi.c doesn't do this either. > @@ -93,6 +97,9 @@ setup_resource(struct acpi_resource *acp > unsigned long flags; > struct resource *root; > > + if (info->res_num >= PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES) > + return AE_OK; And should we really be silently ignoring this problem? Should we at least report it? > status = resource_to_addr(acpi_res, &addr); > if (!ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) > return AE_OK; > - 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
