From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f180.google.com ([209.85.223.180]:48004 "EHLO mail-iw0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757774AbZJaNkp convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:40:45 -0400 Received: by iwn10 with SMTP id 10so2712853iwn.4 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:40:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1256996211.3555.131.camel@johannes.local> References: <1256971237.3555.87.camel@johannes.local> <43e72e890910310635q6015cf3bq639426d5c1502454@mail.gmail.com> <1256996211.3555.131.camel@johannes.local> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:40:30 -0700 Message-ID: <43e72e890910310640p6855a87bk37d3c07697b158d1@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: fix NULL ptr deref To: Johannes Berg Cc: John Linville , Parag Warudkar , linux-wireless Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 06:35 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Johannes Berg >> wrote: >> >  commit 211a4d12abf86fe0df4cd68fc6327cbb58f56f81 >> >  Author: Johannes Berg >> >  Date:   Tue Oct 20 15:08:53 2009 +0900 >> > >> >      cfg80211: sme: deauthenticate on assoc failure >> > >> > introduced a potential NULL pointer dereference that >> > some people have been hitting for some reason -- the >> > params.bssid pointer is not guaranteed to be non-NULL >> > for what seems to be a race between various ways of >> > reaching the same thing. >> > >> > While I'm trying to analyse the problem more let's >> > first fix the crash. I think the real fix may be to >> > avoid doing _anything_ if it ended up being NULL, but >> > right now I'm not sure yet. >> > >> > I think >> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14342 >> > might also be this issue. >> > >> > Reported-by: Parag Warudkar >> > Tested-by: Parag Warudkar >> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg >> >> Do we know if this will also affect 2.6.32? > > I'm pretty sure -- have we got any changes to this code that are not > in .32? Not sure, I just wanted to make sure we fix .32 as well, that's all. Luis