From: "Zhou, Yun" <yun.zhou@windriver.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
Samuel Page <sam@bynar.io>,
horms@kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nfc tree with the nfc-fixes tree
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:18:47 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <22a9e54e-936d-45b8-9083-441c29d43621@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <akJv3Ajqh0ALyEk4@sirena.org.uk>
Hi Mark, David,
My patch (1d5fcb66b07a3) [1] was applied to the nfc tree on Jun 2,
nearly a month before Samuel's (075f88b7d3b5c, Jun 24) [2] . They fix
the same bug.
But Samuel's v2 still has issues that I addressed during my v1 [3] -->
v3 iteration:
1. Error response handling: his patch requires sizeof(*rsp_1) before
reading the status field. A valid NCI error response may only contain
a 1-byte status — his code returns SYNTAX_ERROR instead of propagating
the device's actual error code. I fixed this in v2 [4] by checking 1
byte first, then requiring the full header only after status == OK.
2. ndev state corruption: Simon flagged that if the length check fails
after ndev fields are partially updated, it leaves ndev in an
inconsistent state. My v3 defers all ndev updates until after
validation passes.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260527052625.3309581-1-yun.zhou@windriver.com/T/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260624224455.999374-1-sam@bynar.io/
[3]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260519013042.3459906-1-yun.zhou@windriver.com/T/
[4]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260522021326.1164807-1-yun.zhou@windriver.com/T/
Was there something wrong with my version, or was it just a mechanical
conflict resolution?
Thanks,
Yun
On 6/29/2026 9:15 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the nfc tree got a conflict in:
>
> net/nfc/nci/rsp.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 075f88b7d3b5c ("nfc: nci: fix uninit-value in nci_core_init_rsp_packet()")
>
> from the nfc-fixes tree and commit:
>
> 1d5fcb66b07a3 ("nfc: nci: fix use of uninitialized memory in CORE_INIT_RSP parsing")
>
> from the nfc tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> diff --cc net/nfc/nci/rsp.c
> index 6b2fa6bdbd14b,85c3ff2b78cd9..0000000000000
> --- a/net/nfc/nci/rsp.c
> +++ b/net/nfc/nci/rsp.c
> @@@ -50,7 -50,8 +50,8 @@@ static u8 nci_core_init_rsp_packet_v1(s
> const struct nci_core_init_rsp_1 *rsp_1 = (void *)skb->data;
> const struct nci_core_init_rsp_2 *rsp_2;
>
> + /* Ensure that the status field can be accessed. */
> - if (skb_headlen(skb) < 1)
> + if (skb->len < sizeof(*rsp_1))
> return NCI_STATUS_SYNTAX_ERROR;
>
> pr_debug("status 0x%x\n", rsp_1->status);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-24 3:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-29 13:15 Mark Brown
2026-07-24 3:18 ` Zhou, Yun [this message]
2026-07-26 19:50 ` David Heidelberg
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=22a9e54e-936d-45b8-9083-441c29d43621@windriver.com \
--to=yun.zhou@windriver.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=david@ixit.cz \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sam@bynar.io \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®