--- linux-2.4.23-pre5/drivers/atm/he.c.orig 2003-09-22 11:41:20.000000000 -0300
+++ linux-2.4.23-pre5/drivers/atm/he.c 2003-09-22 11:44:50.000000000 -0300
@@ -2866,8 +2866,10 @@
if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
return -EPERM;
- copy_from_user(®, (struct he_ioctl_reg *) arg,
- sizeof(struct he_ioctl_reg));
+ if (copy_from_user(®, (struct he_ioctl_reg *) arg,
+ sizeof(struct he_ioctl_reg)))
+ return -EFAULT;
+
spin_lock_irqsave(&he_dev->global_lock, flags);
switch (reg.type) {
case HE_REGTYPE_PCI:
@@ -2891,8 +2893,9 @@
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&he_dev->global_lock, flags);
if (err == 0)
- copy_to_user((struct he_ioctl_reg *) arg, ®,
- sizeof(struct he_ioctl_reg));
+ if (copy_to_user((struct he_ioctl_reg *) arg, ®,
+ sizeof(struct he_ioctl_reg)))
+ return -EFAULT;
break;
default:
#ifdef CONFIG_ATM_HE_USE_SUNI
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:36:02 -0300
Felipe W Damasio <[email protected]> wrote:
> Patch against 2.4.23-pre5.
>
> Backport of the fix the Chas applied in 2.6 kernel.
Please do not submit patches directly to head kernel maintainers for
subsystems that are very responsibly maintained.
If Chas believes he should put this ATM change into the 2.4.x
kernel, he undoubtedly will.
I don't know about other people, but when I see people send things
directly to one of the head kernel maintainers for something I
directly maintain, it drives me absolutely crazy. This feeling is
amplified exponentially if this is submitted privately and it's a
patch that has been knowingly rejected by me, although happily that is
not the case here.
(In particular someone recenrly tried to slip the infamous arp hidden
into 2.4.x by sending it to Marcelo privately, when Marcelo forwarded
this to me I wanted to pull all the hair out of my head for someone
even considering to try doing that.)