From: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
it?
------------------
From: "Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>"
commit cc0f868d8adef7bdc12cda132654870086d766bc upstream
->remote_rx_info and ->rx_info are struct ntb_rx_info pointers. If we
add sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info) then it goes too far.
Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.9.x: ad3e2751: ntb: off by one
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jon Mason <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jonghwan Choi <[email protected]>
---
drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c b/drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c
index e0bdfd7..676ee16 100644
--- a/drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c
+++ b/drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c
@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ static void ntb_transport_setup_qp_mw(struct ntb_transport *nt,
(qp_num / NTB_NUM_MW * rx_size);
rx_size -= sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info);
- qp->rx_buff = qp->remote_rx_info + sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info);
+ qp->rx_buff = qp->remote_rx_info + 1;
qp->rx_max_frame = min(transport_mtu, rx_size);
qp->rx_max_entry = rx_size / qp->rx_max_frame;
qp->rx_index = 0;
@@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ static void ntb_transport_init_queue(struct ntb_transport *nt,
(qp_num / NTB_NUM_MW * tx_size);
tx_size -= sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info);
- qp->tx_mw = qp->rx_info + sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info);
+ qp->tx_mw = qp->rx_info + 1;
qp->tx_max_frame = min(transport_mtu, tx_size);
qp->tx_max_entry = tx_size / qp->tx_max_frame;
qp->tx_index = 0;
--
1.8.1.2
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:39:05AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote:
> From: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
>
> This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
> it?
>
Normally these questions are handled by the subsystem maintainer.
regards,
dan carpenter
Thanks for your advice.
Best Regards.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:39:05AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote:
>> From: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
>>
>> This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
>> it?
>>
>
> Normally these questions are handled by the subsystem maintainer.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:39:05AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote:
> From: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
>
> This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
> it?
Yes, thanks.
>
> ------------------
>
> From: "Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>"
>
> commit cc0f868d8adef7bdc12cda132654870086d766bc upstream
>
> ->remote_rx_info and ->rx_info are struct ntb_rx_info pointers. If we
> add sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info) then it goes too far.
>
> Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.9.x: ad3e2751: ntb: off by one
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jon Mason <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jonghwan Choi <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c b/drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c
> index e0bdfd7..676ee16 100644
> --- a/drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c
> +++ b/drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c
> @@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ static void ntb_transport_setup_qp_mw(struct ntb_transport *nt,
> (qp_num / NTB_NUM_MW * rx_size);
> rx_size -= sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info);
>
> - qp->rx_buff = qp->remote_rx_info + sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info);
> + qp->rx_buff = qp->remote_rx_info + 1;
> qp->rx_max_frame = min(transport_mtu, rx_size);
> qp->rx_max_entry = rx_size / qp->rx_max_frame;
> qp->rx_index = 0;
> @@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ static void ntb_transport_init_queue(struct ntb_transport *nt,
> (qp_num / NTB_NUM_MW * tx_size);
> tx_size -= sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info);
>
> - qp->tx_mw = qp->rx_info + sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info);
> + qp->tx_mw = qp->rx_info + 1;
> qp->tx_max_frame = min(transport_mtu, tx_size);
> qp->tx_max_entry = tx_size / qp->tx_max_frame;
> qp->tx_index = 0;
> --
> 1.8.1.2
>