From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <4BB3570F.2070702@domain.hid>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:07:11 +0200
From: Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4BB1C51F.4010106@domain.hid> <4BB1C5B7.7040400@domain.hid>
	<4BB1D0EB.30401@domain.hid> <4BB213AD.5020606@domain.hid>
	<4BB32F45.4010603@domain.hid> <4BB355EF.7070503@domain.hid>
	<4BB35651.1020307@domain.hid>
In-Reply-To: <4BB35651.1020307@domain.hid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [git pull] RTDM: Fix potential NULL pointer
	dereference
List-Id: Xenomai life and development <xenomai.xenomai.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core>,
	<mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
List-Archive: </public/xenomai-core>
List-Post: <mailto:xenomai@xenomai.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
List-Subscribe: <https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core>,
	<mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>
Cc: xenomai-core <xenomai@xenomai.org>

Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>>> The following changes since commit 6b3e8f2e5c69397814cb2f4029cdfbaff16e113e:
>>>>>>>   Gilles Chanteperdrix (1):
>>>>>>>         doc: regenerate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   git://git.xenomai.org/xenomai-jki.git for-upstream
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately too late for 2.5.2, fortunately only relevant if something
>>>>>>> else went wrong in create_instance (ENOMEM or application error).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wolfgang Mauerer (1):
>>>>>>>       RTDM: Fix potential NULL pointer dereference
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  ksrc/skins/rtdm/core.c |    2 +-
>>>>>>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was not there any plan to remove this code and have a more "posix
>>>>>> compliant" close? I thought this had been merged?
>>>>> Yes. But that requires more work than it would have been appropriate for
>>>>> 2.5.2.
>>>> Ok, but could we have it for 2.5.3?
>>>>
>>> Will see what I can do (no budget for this, so no promise).
>> The patches are floating around for some time (I was in CC of the mail
>> Philippe sent you about this some time ago), I guess some testing is
>> needed, this is why you need some time? Could we help with this testing?
>>
> 
> Then I totally lost track of this. What series are you referring to?

A (private) mail entitled "Re: RTDM close() refactoring" from Philippe,
with in fact, a unique patch.

-- 
					    Gilles.