From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756192Ab0FPJ3X (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:29:23 -0400 Received: from mailout3.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.13]:53846 "EHLO mailout3.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755776Ab0FPJ3U convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:29:20 -0400 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:30:09 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBOYXphcmV3aWN6?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: gadget: g_fs: possible invalid pointer reference bug fixed In-reply-to: <4C17519C.5080209@ru.mvista.com> To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, David Brownell , Kyungmin Park , Marek Szyprowski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-id: Organization: Samsung Electronics Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.60 (Linux) References: <4C17519C.5080209@ru.mvista.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Michal Nazarewicz wrote: >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/g_ffs.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/g_ffs.c >> index 2f26470..da3a9e4 100644 >> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/g_ffs.c >> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/g_ffs.c >> @@ -392,6 +392,17 @@ static int __gfs_do_config(struct usb_configuration *c, >> if (unlikely(ret < 0)) >> return ret; >> >> + /* After previous do_configs there may be some invalid >> + * pointers in c->interface array. This happens every time >> + * a user space function with fewer interfaces than a user >> + * space function that was run before the new one is run. The >> + * compasit's set_config() assumes that if there is no more >> + * then MAX_CONFIG_INTERFACES interfaces in a configuration >> + * then there is a NULL pointer after the last interface in >> + * c->interface array. We need to make sure this is true. */ On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:10:36 +0200, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > According to CodingStyle, the preferred style of the multi-line comments > is this: > > /* > * bla > * bla > */ You are of course correct but on the other hand I have consistently used the incorrect form so far also in g_ffs.c so... I think correcting only this comment would bring inconsistency so I should rather resend it with other (two) comments corrected as well. Anyone thinks I should do that? And I promise, I will remember to use the correct format in my future files. -- Best regards, _ _ | Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o | Computer Science, Michał "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o) +----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo--