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 <[email protected]>
---
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(-)
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 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 <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>
>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 03:48:50PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 21 March 2013 15:16, Vinod Koul <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> 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. ;-)