From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756736Ab1DZTxz (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:53:55 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:35052 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751191Ab1DZTxx (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:53:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:53:42 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Jiri Slaby Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, stable-review@kernel.org, Alan Cox , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH 090/173] USB: serial/kobil_sct, fix potential tty NULL dereference Message-ID: <20110426195342.GB19594@1wt.eu> References: <20110425200236.905912775@pcw.home.local> <4DB6994B.3060204@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DB6994B.3060204@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:07:07PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 04/25/2011 10:04 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >2.6.27.59-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let > >us know. > > > >------------------ > > > >From: Jiri Slaby > > > >commit 6960f40a954619857e7095a6179eef896f297077 upstream. > > > >Make sure that we check the return value of tty_port_tty_get. > >Sometimes it may return NULL and we later dereference that. > > > >The only place here is in kobil_read_int_callback, so fix it. > > > >Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby > >Cc: Alan Cox > >Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > >--- > > drivers/usb/serial/kobil_sct.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >--- a/drivers/usb/serial/kobil_sct.c > >+++ b/drivers/usb/serial/kobil_sct.c > >@@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ static void kobil_read_int_callback(stru > > } > > > > tty = port->port.tty; > >- if (urb->actual_length) { > >+ if (tty&& urb->actual_length) { > > Ok, but this doesn't fix the bug (the URB should be killed or something > similar in that kernel), it only makes the window smaller. OK I get it now, it requires patch 4a90f09b which is quite not some suitable material for -longterm. Do you think it's better to completely remove this patch than making one think the risk of bug is gone while it is not ? Unless we find something more reliable, I'd rather drop the patch. Thanks, Willy