On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:01:28PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Simon Horman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > @@ -202,6 +214,15 @@ void tmio_mmc_enable_mmc_irqs(struct tmio_mmc_host > > *host, u32 i); > > void tmio_mmc_disable_mmc_irqs(struct tmio_mmc_host *host, u32 i); > > irqreturn_t tmio_mmc_irq(int irq, void *devid); > > > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMC_SDHI) > > +const struct tmio_mmc_dma_ops *tmio_mmc_get_dma_ops(void); > > +#else > > +static inline const struct tmio_mmc_dma_ops *tmio_mmc_get_dma_ops(void) > > +{ > > + return NULL; > > +} > > +#endif > > + > > static inline char *tmio_mmc_kmap_atomic(struct scatterlist *sg, > > unsigned long *flags) > > { > > Here you return a NULL pointer for the operations structure > > > + > > +static inline void tmio_mmc_enable_dma(struct tmio_mmc_host *host, bool > > enable) > > +{ > > + if (host->dma_ops->enable) > > + host->dma_ops->enable(host, enable); > > +} > > > > And here you check the ->enable callback but not the dma_ops pointer. > In the other callbacks you check the dma_ops pointer but not the callback. > Is that intentional? Maybe always check the dma_ops pointer first for > consistency, as a NULL operations structure (resulting from a future bug) > might lead running user space with kernel privileges.
Thanks for noticing. I resolved that problem but it seems to have crept back in again. I'll check to see how that happened.
