On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 14:58 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:39:49AM -0700, Michael Zoran wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 14:36 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:09:37AM -0700, Michael Zoran wrote: > > > > I didn't think it looked totally correct, but I'm not sure it's > > > > any > > > > more broken then what is already in the tree. > > > > > > It's not more broken. But better to leave the compile warning > > > there > > > to > > > mark that it is an obvious security problem. > > > > > > > > > > > If you can kindly point me to some other source code or > > > > documentation > > > > to look at that is correct, I'm more then willing to fix the > > > > patch. > > > > > > > > > > I was hoping the maintainers could chip in, because I didn't want > > > to > > > look at the code. We really need to track which are use pointers > > > and > > > which are kernel pointers. We can't mix them like this. > > > > > > regards, > > > dan carpenter > > > > > > > The problem is that I'm mostly interested in arm64 ATM, and I don't > > think the existing code works at all with 64 bit pointers. > > > > Broken as it may be... > > It's a security issue. We'll get this fixed in a day or two. > > regards, > dan carpenter If security is a major goal with this driver, I think the whole driver needs to be thrown out the door and rewritten from scratch! This driver is for the Raspberry PI and a very, very big assumption that is in the whole architecture is that local processes are trusted. I can give you probably a phone book of issues like this with this driver, but I'm thinking that's outside the scope of this patch set and outside the scope of what I'm trying to do. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
