From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:1604 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751168AbdDCNVO (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2017 09:21:14 -0400 From: Kalle Valo To: Johan Hovold CC: ath9k-devel , Daniel Drake , Ulrich Kunitz , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] wireless: ath9k_htc: fix NULL-deref at probe Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:21:08 +0000 Message-ID: <87fuhpmxto.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20170403_152155_706693_EE72B085) References: <20170313124421.28587-1-johan@kernel.org> <20170403084213.GE25742@localhost> <87shlpomvx.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <87k271myos.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <20170403131616.GA3119@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20170403131616.GA3119@localhost> (Johan Hovold's message of "Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:16:16 +0200") Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Johan Hovold writes: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:02:28PM +0000, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Kalle Valo writes: >>=20 >> > Johan Hovold writes: >> > >> >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 01:44:20PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: >> >>> Make sure to check the number of endpoints to avoid dereferencing a >> >>> NULL-pointer or accessing memory beyond the endpoint array should a >> >>> malicious device lack the expected endpoints. >> >>>=20 >> >>> Fixes: 36bcce430657 ("ath9k_htc: Handle storage devices") >> >>> Cc: Sujith Manoharan >> >>> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold >> >> >> >> Is this one still in your queue, Kalle? >> > >> > Yes, I'm just lacking behing: >> > >> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9620723/ >>=20 >> Meant "lagging" of course. Mondays.. >>=20 >> >> As I mentioned earlier, I should have added a >> >> >> >> Cc: stable # 2.6.39 >> >> >> >> but left it out as I mistakingly thought the net recommendations to d= o >> >> so applied also to wireless. >> > >> > Ok, I'll add that. >>=20 >> But is 2.6.39 really correct? Shouldn't it be 2.6.39+ so that it means >> all versions since 2.6.39? > > Either way is fine, the stable maintainers apply them to all later > versions. > > I notice now that adding a plus sign is more common, but it's still a > 1:2 ratio judging from quick grep, while the stable-kernel-rules.rst > actually uses a minus sign... Heh, quite confusing :) I added the plus sign already to the patch in my pending branch so unless you object I'll keep it. --=20 Kalle Valo=