On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/11/14 11:26, Nick Krause wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 08/11/14 11:04, Nick Krause wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> I am fixing the bug entry , https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60461. >>>>> This entry states that we are not checking the skb allocated in fw_download_code >>>>> and after checking I fixed it to check for the NULL value before using the allocate >>>>> skb. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c | 14 ++++++++------ >>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c >>>>> index 1a95d1f..0a4c926 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_firmware.c >>>>> @@ -60,13 +60,15 @@ static bool fw_download_code(struct net_device *dev, u8 *code_virtual_address, >>>>> >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> - skb = dev_alloc_skb(frag_length + 4); >>>>> - memcpy((unsigned char *)(skb->cb), &dev, sizeof(dev)); >>>>> - tcb_desc = (struct cb_desc *)(skb->cb + MAX_DEV_ADDR_SIZE); >>>>> - tcb_desc->queue_index = TXCMD_QUEUE; >>>>> - tcb_desc->bCmdOrInit = DESC_PACKET_TYPE_INIT; >>>>> - tcb_desc->bLastIniPkt = bLastIniPkt; >>>>> >>>>> + skb = dev_alloc_skb(frag_length + 4); >>>>> + if (skb) { >>>>> + memcpy((unsigned char *)(skb->cb), &dev, sizeof(dev)); >>>>> + tcb_desc = (struct cb_desc *)(skb->cb + MAX_DEV_ADDR_SIZE); >>>>> + tcb_desc->queue_index = TXCMD_QUEUE; >>>>> + tcb_desc->bCmdOrInit = DESC_PACKET_TYPE_INIT; >>>>> + tcb_desc->bLastIniPkt = bLastIniPkt; >>>>> + } >>> >>> and what happens here (below) if skb is NULL? > > Nick, > I'm asking if you have completely fixed the bug or only partially fixed it. > The answer is that the patch is only a partial fix. If skb is NULL, there > is still a problem in the statement below here. The kernel will oops on > that reference to skb, which is NULL. > >>> >>>>> seg_ptr = skb->data; >>>>> for (i = 0; i < frag_length; i += 4) { >>>>> *seg_ptr++ = ((i+0) < frag_length) ? >>>>> -- >>>>> 1.9.1 >>>>> >>>> And I did check it against Linus's tree to make sure it applies , just >>>> to let you known. >>>> Nick >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ~Randy >> Sorry Randy. >> I may be mis reading this, but are you asking me to write a different >> commit message or is this patch just another bad patch in my series of >> bad patches? > > > -- > ~Randy Randy , Thanks for the catch :). Would you recommend just putting it in the if statement I created or create a second if statement for code readability. Cheers Nick _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
