From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dominik Brodowski Subject: Re: Re: Linux ACPI processor driver patch: user-definable power state limit Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 00:55:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20041105235534.GB21880@dominikbrodowski.de> References: <1099683907.13837.1353.camel@d845pe> <20041105225438.GA8262@dominikbrodowski.de> <200411060039.28067.jos.delbar@ugent.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200411060039.28067.jos.delbar-Cru1EgDzd7c@public.gmane.org> Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Jos Delbar Cc: Len Brown , ACPI Developers , Robert Moore , James P Ketrenos List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 12:39:27AM +0100, Jos Delbar wrote: > Is it safe to return a pointer to an internal module structure? I think > a bad driver could potentially ruin the linked list by changing the next > pointer. A bad driver can potentially ruin your whole hard drive, contain security holes and so on. But you're right, it's better to be safe than sorry. My patch doesn't export the internals of "struct acpi_cstate_limit", just a pointer ... and that is common practice, AFAICS. Thanks, Dominik ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click