2015-10-21 16:47 GMT+03:00 Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@xxxxxxx>: > On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 16:18 +0300, Dāvis Mosāns wrote: >> 2015-10-21 10:33 GMT+03:00 Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@xxxxxxx>: >> > On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 20:41 +0300, Dāvis Mosāns wrote: >> > > 2015-08-21 7:29 GMT+03:00 Dāvis Mosāns <davispuh@xxxxxxxxx>: >> > > > When pci_pool_alloc fails in mvs_task_prep then task->lldd_task >> > > > stays >> > > > NULL but it's later used in mvs_abort_task as slot which is >> > > > passed >> > > > to mvs_slot_task_free causing NULL pointer dereference. >> > > > >> > > > Just return from mvs_slot_task_free when passed with NULL slot. >> > > > >> > > > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101891 >> > > > Signed-off-by: Dāvis Mosāns <davispuh@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > > --- >> > > > drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_sas.c | 2 ++ >> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> > > > >> > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_sas.c >> > > > b/drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_sas.c >> > > > index 454536c..9c78074 100644 >> > > > --- a/drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_sas.c >> > > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_sas.c >> > > > @@ -887,6 +887,8 @@ static void mvs_slot_free(struct mvs_info >> > > > *mvi, >> > > > u32 rx_desc) >> > > > static void mvs_slot_task_free(struct mvs_info *mvi, struct >> > > > sas_task *task, >> > > > struct mvs_slot_info *slot, u32 >> > > > slot_idx) >> > > > { >> > > > + if (!slot) >> > > > + return; >> > > > if (!slot->task) >> > > > return; >> > > > if (!sas_protocol_ata(task->task_proto)) >> > > > -- >> > > > 2.5.0 >> > > > >> > > >> > > Can this get merged? >> > > So far since august it have saved me from several kernel crashes. >> > >> > If it saved you from several crashes, it probably should be tagged >> > for >> > stable, shouldn't it? >> > >> > Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@xxxxxxx> >> > >> > >> >> I don't really know how that works... this is my first patch so I'm >> not really concerned about in which version it gets in as long as it >> does. >> I've been compiling kernel with this patch for these months so for me >> it >> doesn't really make any difference. > > You can add > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > somewhere around your Signed-off-by > > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt has all the process > documentation. Should I add it together with review tags too and resend patch or reply to this thread with it edited or just leave it like it is now and whoever will see it will add it himself? also for stable requirements this line is a bit confusing "It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream)." but then later seems it's not requirement for Option 1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
