From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johan Hovold Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] wireless: ath9k_htc: fix NULL-deref at probe Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:26:02 +0200 Message-ID: <20170403132602.GB3119@localhost> 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> <87fuhpmxto.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johan Hovold , 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" To: Kalle Valo Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87fuhpmxto.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:21:08PM +0000, Kalle Valo wrote: > Johan Hovold writes: > > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:02:28PM +0000, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Kalle Valo writes: > >> > >> > 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. > >> >>> > >> >>> 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/ > >> > >> Meant "lagging" of course. Mondays.. > >> > >> >> 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 do > >> >> so applied also to wireless. > >> > > >> > Ok, I'll add that. > >> > >> 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. Please do, no objection. :) Thanks, Johan