On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote:
> On 8/1/07, Manu Abraham <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 7/31/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > The Coverity checker spotted that we have already oops'ed if "fe" was
> > NULL.
> > >
> > > --- linux-2.6.23-rc1-mm1/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-core/dvb_frontend.c.old
> > > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc1-mm1/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-core/dvb_frontend.c
> > > @@ -706,11 +706,11 @@ static int dvb_frontend_ioctl(struct ino
> > > - if (!fe || fepriv->exit)
> > > + if (fepriv->exit)
> > > return -ENODEV;
>
> This issue has been known for a while including some other problems at
> that part.
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.dvb/35351/match=patch+dvb_net+hotplugging+support
>
> this includes a link where this and more got discussed in May.
For dvb_net_close, I like the patch I already posted better. To fix the
check-after-use, it's not "use" part that's the problem, it's the "check" part
that isn't necessary.
I traced the dvb-net code, http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/543689,
and I'm sure that dvbdev can't be NULL.
My patch also deletes a few pieces of duplicated code by calling
dvb_generic_release().
The only problem is that practically no one uses dvb-net, so it's very hard to
test these patches.
In all the dvb code, were is the locking for device open and release? I don't
see it. What is preventing two threads from trying to open and/or close the
same dvb device at the same time?
-
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]
