From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752777Ab3FGGLc (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jun 2013 02:11:32 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38501 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750789Ab3FGGLa (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jun 2013 02:11:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:12:05 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Ben Hutchings , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Sean Connor , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [ 044/184] ALSA: ice1712: Initialize card->private_data In-Reply-To: <20130607053401.GE14633@1wt.eu> References: <20130604172132.135940874@1wt.eu> <1370576938.4021.66.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> <20130607053401.GE14633@1wt.eu> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/24.2 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At Fri, 7 Jun 2013 07:34:01 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 04:48:58AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > From: Sean Connor > > > > > > commit 69a4cfdd444d1fe5c24d29b3a063964ac165d2cd upstream. > > > > > > Set card->private_data in snd_ice1712_create for fixing NULL > > > dereference in snd_ice1712_remove(). > > > > This bug appears to have been introduced in Linux 3.8 and doesn't need > > fixing in 2.6.32. > > Ah indeed that's true. Does it harm to have it or not ? It's harmless. > because I'm > still seeing a number of places where we have this in the driver : > > struct snd_ice1712 *ice = ac97->private_data; These are different object types. The reference of card->private_data was introduced recently as Ben pointed out. > I'd like to be sure that no other function risks to dereference the > same pointer. Also, I'm noting that 3.0/3.4 have this fix, while 3.2 > does not. So I'm hesitant what to do with this patch. Just overlooked in 3.0/3.4 reviews :-< But it's utterly harmless, we don't have to remove it from 3.0/3.4, I think. For 2.6.32, better to get rid of it from the queue, if it's not too late. thanks, Takashi