On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:40:56 -0200
"Renato S. Yamane" <yamane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jeff Layton wrote:
> > ---
> > fs/cifs/cifssmb.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> > index 9395928..824df14 100644
> > --- a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> > +++ b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> > @@ -3992,7 +3992,8 @@ parse_DFS_referrals(TRANSACTION2_GET_DFS_REFER_RSP *pSMBr,
> >
> > node->flags = le16_to_cpu(pSMBr->DFSFlags);
> > if (is_unicode) {
> > - __le16 *tmp = kmalloc(strlen(searchName)*2, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + __le16 *tmp = kmalloc(strlen(searchName)*2 + 2,
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > cifsConvertToUCS((__le16 *) tmp, searchName,
> > PATH_MAX, nls_codepage, remap);
> > node->path_consumed = hostlen_fromUCS(tmp,
>
> This patch can't be applied in -stable release:
>
> yamane@mandachuva:~/kernel/linux-2.6.27.9$ patch -p1 < cifs.patch
> patching file fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 3992.
> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/cifs/cifssmb.c.rej
>
My apologies. The patch that introduced this problem isn't in stable
releases. You can drop this patch from stable queue. Sorry for false alarm.
It would be good for 2.6.28 kernels though since it's a regression and
possible memory corruptor.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
