From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932128Ab1FGRh6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2011 13:37:58 -0400 Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:58119 "EHLO out3.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755789Ab1FGRh5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2011 13:37:57 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: fWCOAcjSGMpoT13U6bG1frkw+FFcszYp0QcEjes6Ku8w 1307468276 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:37:51 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Jiri Slaby Cc: gregkh@suse.de, jirislaby@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox Subject: Re: TTY: ntty, add one more sanity check Message-ID: <20110607173751.GA28192@kroah.com> References: <1307276177-20957-1-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz> <1307276177-20957-2-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz> <20110607172014.GA13661@kroah.com> <4DEE6037.1020400@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DEE6037.1020400@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 07:30:31PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 06/07/2011 07:20 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 02:16:17PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > >> With the previous patch, we fixed another bug where read_buf was freed > >> while we still was in n_tty_read. We currently check whether read_buf > >> is NULL at the start of the function. Add one more check after we wake > >> up from waiting for input. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby > >> Cc: Alan Cox > >> --- > >> drivers/tty/n_tty.c | 1 + > >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c > >> index 95d0a9c..c62c856 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c > >> +++ b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c > >> @@ -1785,6 +1785,7 @@ do_it_again: > >> break; > >> } > >> timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout); > >> + BUG_ON(!tty->read_buf); > >> continue; > >> } > >> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); > > > > This doesn't apply anymore without some fuzz as stuff has changed in > > this area in Linus's tree. > > > > Can you refresh it and resend it so that I know it's correct? > > > > Or, just verify that the diff below is correct, and I'll take that one. > > Yes, it's correct. Thanks for confirming, now applied. greg k-h