From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ondrej Zary Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 12:07:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch RESEND] atp870u: 64 bit bug in atp885_init() Message-Id: <201512091307.59549.linux@rainbow-software.org> List-Id: References: <55B9CA3B.1030205@suse.de> <20151209102453.GE3173@mwanda> <20151209115339.46a09d94@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20151209115339.46a09d94@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: One Thousand Gnomes Cc: Dan Carpenter , "James E.J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Hannes Reinecke On Wednesday 09 December 2015 12:53:39 One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:24:53 +0300 > Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On 64 bit CPUs there is a memory corruption bug on probe(). It should > > be a u32 pointer instead of an unsigned long pointer or we write past > > the end of the setupdata[] array. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter > > Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke > > --- > > Resending because we have shuffled the code around so the patch needed > > to be refreshed against linux-next. Although I do wonder why we are > > still working on this code since it has never worked on 64 bit systems > > so probably all the users gave up a decade ago. > > So this is untested ? If so please make it very clear in the commit > message because the kernel is IMHO getting too full of polished, neat, > recently modified, never tested, never used code. > > I agree it would be better if the driver was simply deleted. I've not > even seen an ATP870 bug report in years. Maybe because it worked. Although the code was horrible. I've done some big changes to this driver recently (tested, of course). I can't test this patch as I don't have ATP885 card, only ATP870. -- Ondrej Zary