On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:38:57PM -0500, David Kershner wrote: > From: David Binder <david.bin...@unisys.com> > > Clarifies why the pointer returned from visorbus_get_device_by_id() in > bus_destroy() is validated. The check is performed in order to be extra > careful, for the sake of added security, that the s-Par backend is > providing us with a valid bus/device pair. > > Signed-off-by: David Binder <david.bin...@unisys.com> > Signed-off-by: David Kershner <david.kersh...@unisys.com> > Reported-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> > --- > drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c > b/drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c > index c90ea6a..2d1b226 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c > @@ -755,6 +755,7 @@ bus_destroy(struct controlvm_message *inmsg) > int err; > > bus_info = visorbus_get_device_by_id(bus_no, BUS_ROOT_DEVICE, NULL); > + /* Validate that s-Par backend gave a good bus */
I don't remember what I said in my review, but this comment is pretty useless. I guess my point is, how could BUS_ROOT_DEVICE ever NOT be a valid device on the bus? What would have made it go away? Comments like this don't make much sense, maybe my review didn't either :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
