From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: Null dereference in uli526x_rx_packet() Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20090412.195604.19944866.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20090329053513.GD19602@colo.lackof.org> <20090328.235931.45430524.davem@davemloft.net> <20090413024505.GC13090@lackof.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kyle@mcmartin.ca, netdev@vger.kernel.org, error27@gmail.com To: grundler@parisc-linux.org Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:58267 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753481AbZDMC4N (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:56:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090413024505.GC13090@lackof.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Grant Grundler Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:45:05 -0600 > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:59:31PM -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: Grant Grundler >> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:35:13 -0600 >> >> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:23:32PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: >> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:47:54PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: >> > > > > I don't know if the right fix is to return like this patch does or to set >> > > > > skb = rxptr->rx_skb_ptr again. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Ick... that's a good catch. I'll have to think about this. >> > > > >> > > >> > > I think this is alright, it at least keeps the original intent of the >> > > code. I don't pretend to have figured it out yet though. >> > > >> > > I'll stare more at this Monday... >> > > >> > > I guess the real question is does anyone still have one of these >> > > cards. I don't think I do, just the proper tulips. :/ >> > >> > Ditto. AFAIK, I only have tulips. >> > >> > Patch below looks right to me. Clobbering the skb is certainly wrong. >> > >> > Acked-by: Grant Grundler >> >> It looks correct to me, can we get a proper submission with >> signoffs etc.? > > Dave, > Is that something I have to do or the original submitter? I would like the original submitted to do this. > Was the "Acked-by" appropriate for me to provide (as maintainer)? Yes, it is of course fine.