| Message ID | 0a0ef15d47393fe9d24a395c38068b871f913776.1363337257.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 02:18:20PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > In of_dma_controller_register() routine we are calling of_get_property() as an > parameter to be32_to_cpup(). In case the property doesn't exist we will get a > crash. > > This patch changes this code to check if we got a valid property first and then > runs be32_to_cpup() on it. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > --- > > My mails are broken, i have pushed this patch here: I noticed you used git send-email. Usually it will send patch properly independent of whatever MUA you use. So I have the patch and its applied now :) -- ~Vinod > > http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/vireshk/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/dma-of-fix > > drivers/dma/of-dma.c | 8 ++++++-- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/of-dma.c b/drivers/dma/of-dma.c > index 69d04d2..09c7ad1 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma/of-dma.c > +++ b/drivers/dma/of-dma.c > @@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ int of_dma_controller_register(struct device_node *np, > { > struct of_dma *ofdma; > int nbcells; > + const __be32 *prop; > > if (!np || !of_dma_xlate) { > pr_err("%s: not enough information provided\n", __func__); > @@ -103,8 +104,11 @@ int of_dma_controller_register(struct device_node *np, > if (!ofdma) > return -ENOMEM; > > - nbcells = be32_to_cpup(of_get_property(np, "#dma-cells", NULL)); > - if (!nbcells) { > + prop = of_get_property(np, "#dma-cells", NULL); > + if (prop) > + nbcells = be32_to_cpup(prop); > + > + if (!prop || !nbcells) { > pr_err("%s: #dma-cells property is missing or invalid\n", > __func__); > kfree(ofdma); > -- > 1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e > >
On 21 March 2013 15:16, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 02:18:20PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> In of_dma_controller_register() routine we are calling of_get_property() as an >> parameter to be32_to_cpup(). In case the property doesn't exist we will get a >> crash. >> >> This patch changes this code to check if we got a valid property first and then >> runs be32_to_cpup() on it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> --- >> >> My mails are broken, i have pushed this patch here: > I noticed you used git send-email. Usually it will send patch properly > independent of whatever MUA you use. Probably not!! Its the famous (Infamous) Microsoft exchange server working in background and it breaks mails without treating mails coming from git send-email specially :) > So I have the patch and its applied now :) I have seen this kind of discrimination on breaking patches based on the size of patch. If its very small (like this one), you may get a unbroken patch but if the size is a bit large then nobody can save you :) -- viresh
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 03:48:50PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 21 March 2013 15:16, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 02:18:20PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> In of_dma_controller_register() routine we are calling of_get_property() as an > >> parameter to be32_to_cpup(). In case the property doesn't exist we will get a > >> crash. > >> > >> This patch changes this code to check if we got a valid property first and then > >> runs be32_to_cpup() on it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > >> --- > >> > >> My mails are broken, i have pushed this patch here: > > I noticed you used git send-email. Usually it will send patch properly > > independent of whatever MUA you use. > > Probably not!! Its the famous (Infamous) Microsoft exchange server working in > background and it breaks mails without treating mails coming from git send-email > specially :) I have seen usually receiving patches is a problem, not sending. at least at my work place till now my sent patches have not been broken but what I receive has thus forcing me to use non exchange accounts for receiving email but somehow situation is better for receiving too :) -- ~Vinod > > > So I have the patch and its applied now :) > > I have seen this kind of discrimination on breaking patches based on the size of > patch. If its very small (like this one), you may get a unbroken patch > but if the size > is a bit large then nobody can save you :) > > -- > viresh
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 03:48:50PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 21 March 2013 15:16, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 02:18:20PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> >> In of_dma_controller_register() routine we are calling of_get_property() as an >> >> parameter to be32_to_cpup(). In case the property doesn't exist we will get a >> >> crash. >> >> >> >> This patch changes this code to check if we got a valid property first and then >> >> runs be32_to_cpup() on it. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> My mails are broken, i have pushed this patch here: >> > I noticed you used git send-email. Usually it will send patch properly >> > independent of whatever MUA you use. >> >> Probably not!! Its the famous (Infamous) Microsoft exchange server working in >> background and it breaks mails without treating mails coming from git send-email >> specially :) > I have seen usually receiving patches is a problem, not sending. at least at my > work place till now my sent patches have not been broken but what I receive has > thus forcing me to use non exchange accounts for receiving email but somehow situation > is better for receiving too :) > -- > ~Vinod >> >> > So I have the patch and its applied now :) >> >> I have seen this kind of discrimination on breaking patches based on the size of >> patch. If its very small (like this one), you may get a unbroken patch >> but if the size >> is a bit large then nobody can save you :) I've seen the Exchange bug in both forms[1] - munging incoming patches as well as outgoing ones. It almost feels like the Exchange team's benevolent ploy to get companies to migrate away from Exchange so they can end-of-life those servers and stop developing Exchange further for the general betterment of humankind.[2] [1] Since as far back as 8 years ago! [2] That or they get bonuses based on how much they disrupt open source communities. ;-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma/of-dma.c b/drivers/dma/of-dma.c index 69d04d2..09c7ad1 100644 --- a/drivers/dma/of-dma.c +++ b/drivers/dma/of-dma.c @@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ int of_dma_controller_register(struct device_node *np, { struct of_dma *ofdma; int nbcells; + const __be32 *prop; if (!np || !of_dma_xlate) { pr_err("%s: not enough information provided\n", __func__); @@ -103,8 +104,11 @@ int of_dma_controller_register(struct device_node *np, if (!ofdma) return -ENOMEM; - nbcells = be32_to_cpup(of_get_property(np, "#dma-cells", NULL)); - if (!nbcells) { + prop = of_get_property(np, "#dma-cells", NULL); + if (prop) + nbcells = be32_to_cpup(prop); + + if (!prop || !nbcells) { pr_err("%s: #dma-cells property is missing or invalid\n", __func__); kfree(ofdma);
In of_dma_controller_register() routine we are calling of_get_property() as an parameter to be32_to_cpup(). In case the property doesn't exist we will get a crash. This patch changes this code to check if we got a valid property first and then runs be32_to_cpup() on it. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- My mails are broken, i have pushed this patch here: http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/vireshk/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/dma-of-fix drivers/dma/of-dma.c | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)