public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Holger Macht <holger@homac.de>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@redhat.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: dock_link_device is oopsy
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:30:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120221223025.GA12989@homac.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F441998.5080600@garzik.org>

On Tue 21. Feb - 17:24:24, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 02/18/2012 02:57 PM, Holger Macht wrote:
> >On Sa 18. Feb - 10:46:04, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >>On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Holger Macht wrote:
> >>>How about that one?
> >>
> >>It's more broken than that.  Here's my attempt.  It boots on the
> >>systems with dock_station_count 0, and it boots on my laptop with
> >>dock_station_count 2; but I don't actually have any docking station,
> >>so it still doesn't test very much (dock is 0 after the loop).
> >
> >Well, there doesn't have to actually exist a physical dock station (or
> >bay device) for dock_station_count to be>  0. It just tells that the
> >ACPI objects are present and thus the system is capable of it.
> >
> >So does this function actually also break on your laptop and you're
> >getting the oops there, too?
> >
> >>I have no idea if what goes on in the loop is correct, but it looks
> >>to me as if (as predicted) there's further breakage, that it would
> >>have been writing beyond the end of what it allocated if I did have
> >>a docking station.
> >>
> >>Hugh
> >>
> >>[PATCH] dock: fix bootup oops and other dock_link breakage
> >>
> >>dock_link_device() and dock_unlink_device() should bail out early
> >>to avoid oops on zero-length kmalloc() when dock_station_count is 0.
> >>
> >>But isn't there an off-by-one in that kmalloc() length anyway?
> >>An extra NULL appended at the end suggests so.
> >>
> >>Rework the ordering with gotos on failure to fix several issues.
> >>
> >>And presumably dock_unlink_device() should be presenting the same
> >>interface as dock_link_device(), with NULL returned when none found.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins<hughd@google.com>
> >
> >Fine with me.
> 
> So, just to be clear, the preferred patch is Hugh's, and I should
> drop your earlier proposed fix found in this thread?

Correct.

> And what about that warning?

You mean the fix for the compile error when compiling with
CONFIG_ACPI_DOCK=n? Here it is again:

[PATCH] acpi: Fix compiler error when setting CONFIG_ACPI_DOCK=n

When compiling with CONFIG_ACPI_DOCK=n,
is_registered_hotplug_dock_device() needs to be defined

Signed-off-by: Holger Macht <holger@homac.de>
---
 include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h |    4 ++++
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h
index 3c4e381..3319574 100644
--- a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h
+++ b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h
@@ -155,6 +155,10 @@ static inline int register_hotplug_dock_device(acpi_handle handle,
 static inline void unregister_hotplug_dock_device(acpi_handle handle)
 {
 }
+static inline int is_registered_hotplug_dock_device(const struct acpi_dock_ops *ops)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
 static inline struct device **dock_link_device(acpi_handle handle)
 {
 	return NULL;
-- 
1.7.7


  reply	other threads:[~2012-02-21 22:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-02-17 21:46 linux-next: dock_link_device is oopsy Hugh Dickins
2012-02-17 22:29 ` Holger Macht
2012-02-17 22:42   ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-17 23:01     ` Holger Macht
2012-02-17 23:49       ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-18 11:14         ` Holger Macht
2012-02-18 13:05           ` Hillf Danton
2012-02-18 13:26             ` Holger Macht
2012-02-18 13:37               ` Hillf Danton
2012-02-18 14:04                 ` Holger Macht
2012-02-18 14:35                   ` Hillf Danton
2012-02-18 18:46                   ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-18 19:57                     ` Holger Macht
2012-02-18 21:03                       ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-18 21:50                         ` Holger Macht
2012-02-21 22:24                       ` Jeff Garzik
2012-02-21 22:30                         ` Holger Macht [this message]
2012-02-18  7:52       ` Hugh Dickins

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=20120221223025.GA12989@homac.suse.de \
    --to=holger@homac.de \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dhillf@gmail.com \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=jeff@garzik.org \
    --cc=jgarzik@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mjg@redhat.com \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    /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