Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd have thought that we'd want the test right at the start of
> > kobject_add() - fail it if ->name is zero. I don't know if that'd work for
> > all callers, but kobject_add() does play around with the ->name field and
> > will go oops if ->name==NULL and debugging is enabled.
>
> Something like this instead?
I think so.
> (warning, untested...)
Ship it!
> I'll try it out in a reboot cycle...
>
> --- gregkh-2.6.orig/lib/kobject.c 2006-01-13 09:15:18.000000000 -0800
> +++ gregkh-2.6/lib/kobject.c 2006-01-13 14:54:40.000000000 -0800
> @@ -164,6 +164,11 @@ int kobject_add(struct kobject * kobj)
> return -ENOENT;
> if (!kobj->k_name)
> kobj->k_name = kobj->name;
> + if (!kobj->k_name) {
> + pr_debug("kobject attempted to be registered with no name!\n");
> + WARN_ON(1);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> parent = kobject_get(kobj->parent);
>
> pr_debug("kobject %s: registering. parent: %s, set: %s\n",
It might be worth emitting the warning and then proceeding rather than
failing - minimise potential disruption. I guess we'll see...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
