public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.Lu@Sun.COM>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>,
	Gary Hade <gary.hade@us.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: check boundary in count/setup_resource called by get_current_resources
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 01:32:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071101013239.992840bd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200711010120.30410.yinghai.lu@sun.com>

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:20:29 -0700 Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.Lu@Sun.COM> wrote:

> [PATCH] x86: check boundary in count/setup_resource called by get_current_resources
> 
> need to check info->res_num less than PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES, so
> info->bus->resource[info->res_num] = res will not beyond of bus resource array
> when acpi resutrn too many resource entries.
> 

Isn't this a bit of a problem?  It sounds like PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES is to
small for that system?  If so, some sort of dynamic allocation might be
needed.

> 
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> @@ -77,9 +77,13 @@ count_resource(struct acpi_resource *acp
>  	struct acpi_resource_address64 addr;
>  	acpi_status status;
>  
> +	if (info->res_num >= PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES)
> +		return AE_OK;
> +
>  	status = resource_to_addr(acpi_res, &addr);
>  	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status))
>  		info->res_num++;
> +
>  	return AE_OK;
>  }

grump.  I don't know why people like a blank line before `return': it's
just a waste of screen space.  And the surrounding code in
arch/x86/pci/acpi.c doesn't do this either.

> @@ -93,6 +97,9 @@ setup_resource(struct acpi_resource *acp
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	struct resource *root;
>  
> +	if (info->res_num >= PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES)
> +		return AE_OK;

And should we really be silently ignoring this problem?  Should we at least
report it?

>  	status = resource_to_addr(acpi_res, &addr);
>  	if (!ACPI_SUCCESS(status))
>  		return AE_OK;
>  

  reply	other threads:[~2007-11-01  8:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-11-01  8:20 [PATCH] x86: check boundary in count/setup_resource called by get_current_resources Yinghai Lu
2007-11-01  8:32 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2007-11-01 18:06   ` Yinghai Lu
2007-11-01 20:10     ` Gary Hade
2007-11-01 18:45   ` Gary Hade

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20071101013239.992840bd.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=Yinghai.Lu@Sun.COM \
    --cc=gary.hade@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox