Fix the dup_sg_table function to initialize the dma_address of the new sg list entries instead of the source dma_address entries.
Fixes: 17fd283f3870 ("staging: android: ion: Duplicate sg_table") Signed-off-by: Liam Mark lmark@codeaurora.org --- drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c index f480885e346b..3ace3a0d9210 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c +++ b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ static struct sg_table *dup_sg_table(struct sg_table *table) new_sg = new_table->sgl; for_each_sg(table->sgl, sg, table->nents, i) { memcpy(new_sg, sg, sizeof(*sg)); - sg->dma_address = 0; + new_sg->dma_address = 0; new_sg = sg_next(new_sg); }
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 10:16:56PM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
Fix the dup_sg_table function to initialize the dma_address of the new sg list entries instead of the source dma_address entries.
Fixes: 17fd283f3870 ("staging: android: ion: Duplicate sg_table") Signed-off-by: Liam Mark lmark@codeaurora.org
How did you find this bug? What are the user visible effects of this bug? I'm probably going to ask you to send a v2 patch with a new changelog depending on the answers to these questions.
regards, dan carpenter
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 10:16:56PM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
Fix the dup_sg_table function to initialize the dma_address of the new sg list entries instead of the source dma_address entries.
Fixes: 17fd283f3870 ("staging: android: ion: Duplicate sg_table") Signed-off-by: Liam Mark lmark@codeaurora.org
How did you find this bug? What are the user visible effects of this bug? I'm probably going to ask you to send a v2 patch with a new changelog depending on the answers to these questions.
I noticed the bug when reading through the code, I haven’t seen any visible effects of this bug.
From looking at the code I don’t see any obvious ways that this bug would
introduce any issues with the current code base.
Liam
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
On 02/12/2018 01:25 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 10:16:56PM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
Fix the dup_sg_table function to initialize the dma_address of the new sg list entries instead of the source dma_address entries.
Fixes: 17fd283f3870 ("staging: android: ion: Duplicate sg_table") Signed-off-by: Liam Mark lmark@codeaurora.org
How did you find this bug? What are the user visible effects of this bug? I'm probably going to ask you to send a v2 patch with a new changelog depending on the answers to these questions.
I noticed the bug when reading through the code, I haven’t seen any visible effects of this bug.
From looking at the code I don’t see any obvious ways that this bug would introduce any issues with the current code base.
Liam
Given the way we duplicate the sg_list this should be harmless but you are right it's cleaner if we initialize the new list. You can add my Ack when you update with a new change log clarifying this.
Thanks, Laura
On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 02/12/2018 01:25 PM, Liam Mark wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 10:16:56PM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
Fix the dup_sg_table function to initialize the dma_address of the new sg list entries instead of the source dma_address entries.
Fixes: 17fd283f3870 ("staging: android: ion: Duplicate sg_table") Signed-off-by: Liam Mark lmark@codeaurora.org
How did you find this bug? What are the user visible effects of this bug? I'm probably going to ask you to send a v2 patch with a new changelog depending on the answers to these questions.
I noticed the bug when reading through the code, I haven?t seen any visible effects of this bug.
From looking at the code I don?t see any obvious ways that this bug
would
introduce any issues with the current code base.
Liam
Given the way we duplicate the sg_list this should be harmless but you are right it's cleaner if we initialize the new list. You can add my Ack when you update with a new change log clarifying this.
Thanks, Laura
Will do.
Thanks, Liam
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 10:16:56PM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
Fix the dup_sg_table function to initialize the dma_address of the new sg list entries instead of the source dma_address entries.
Fixes: 17fd283f3870 ("staging: android: ion: Duplicate sg_table")
So this should be sent to the stable trees as well, right?
Please add that when you resend...
thanks,
greg k-h
On Fri, 16 Feb 2018, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 10:16:56PM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
Fix the dup_sg_table function to initialize the dma_address of the new sg list entries instead of the source dma_address entries.
Fixes: 17fd283f3870 ("staging: android: ion: Duplicate sg_table")
So this should be sent to the stable trees as well, right?
Please add that when you resend...
My understanding was that I should only send this to the stable branch if it fixes a real bug.
Both myself and Laura can't see any actual problems that result from this issue, the change is more to help future proof the code.
My commit message wasn't clear about this and could have mislead people into thinking there was a bug. I will update the commit message to make it clear that this issue doesn't currently result in any problem.
Do you still want me to send it to the stable trees?
Thanks, Liam
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 09:57:12AM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2018, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 10:16:56PM -0800, Liam Mark wrote:
Fix the dup_sg_table function to initialize the dma_address of the new sg list entries instead of the source dma_address entries.
Fixes: 17fd283f3870 ("staging: android: ion: Duplicate sg_table")
So this should be sent to the stable trees as well, right?
Please add that when you resend...
My understanding was that I should only send this to the stable branch if it fixes a real bug.
Both myself and Laura can't see any actual problems that result from this issue, the change is more to help future proof the code.
My commit message wasn't clear about this and could have mislead people into thinking there was a bug. I will update the commit message to make it clear that this issue doesn't currently result in any problem.
Do you still want me to send it to the stable trees?
If it's not a bugfix, no need to. But please clean up your changelog text as it implies that it is a bugfix...
thanks,
greg k-h
linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
-
Dan Carpenter -
Greg KH -
Laura Abbott -
Liam Mark