On Sunday 29 July 2007 21:09, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 29 July 2007 20:34:46 Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > (2) !(dev->flags & IFF_UP) is bogus because the functions of this ioctl
> > > can (and should) be allowed even when t
Hi Michael,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 29 July 2007 20:34:46 Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > (2) !(dev->flags & IFF_UP) is bogus because the functions of this ioctl
> > can (and should) be allowed even when the interface is not up and running.
>
> Are you _sure_? This funct
On Sunday 29 July 2007 20:34:46 Satyam Sharma wrote:
> (2) !(dev->flags & IFF_UP) is bogus because the functions of this ioctl
> can (and should) be allowed even when the interface is not up and running.
Are you _sure_? This function does poke with the device hardware.
It might return crap or even
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Domen Puncer wrote:
>
> > On 29/07/07 00:02 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Here's a small patch, prompted by a find by the Coverity checker,
> > > that removes a potential NULL pointer dereference from
> > > drivers/net/sb1000.c::sb1000_dev_ioctl().
> >
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Domen Puncer wrote:
> On 29/07/07 00:02 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here's a small patch, prompted by a find by the Coverity checker,
> > that removes a potential NULL pointer dereference from
> > drivers/net/sb1000.c::sb1000_dev_ioctl().
> > The checker spo
On 29/07/07 00:02 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's a small patch, prompted by a find by the Coverity checker,
> that removes a potential NULL pointer dereference from
> drivers/net/sb1000.c::sb1000_dev_ioctl().
> The checker spotted that we do a NULL test of 'dev', yet we
> dereferenc
