On 11/8/17 11:06 AM, Andrew Banman wrote:
> If there are uninitialized SMIs in the smi_infos list, i.e. with no
> handlers set, then disable_si_irq() in cleanup_smi_one() will hit a null
> pointer dereference when the former attempts to start the check enables
> transaction. Thus, we panic during module exit.
I think this points to a broader problem of holding uninitialized smi_info
structs in smi_infos list. There are many places where handlers and other struct
members are assumed. Maybe a better design would be to remove SMIs from the list
if we have no intention of initializing them?
Andrew
>
> Avoid panicking when there are uninitialized SMIs by checking for a handler
> pointer before starting the check enables transaction.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Banman <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> index cb5719e..6c0b1b3 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> @@ -442,7 +442,7 @@ static void start_check_enables(struct smi_info *smi_info,
> bool start_timer)
>
> if (start_timer)
> start_new_msg(smi_info, msg, 2);
> - else
> + else if (smi_info->handlers)
> smi_info->handlers->start_transaction(smi_info->si_sm, msg, 2);
> smi_info->si_state = SI_CHECKING_ENABLES;
> }
From 1583518482341618947@xxx Wed Nov 08 17:08:26 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583518482341618947
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread