On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 09:48:35AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> The code was making a copy of a struct ttm_resource. However,
> recently the struct ttm_resources were allowed to be subclassed and
> also were allowed to be malloced, hence the driver could end up assuming
> the copy we handed it
On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 at 17:48, Thomas Hellström
wrote:
>
> The code was making a copy of a struct ttm_resource. However,
> recently the struct ttm_resources were allowed to be subclassed and
> also were allowed to be malloced, hence the driver could end up assuming
> the copy we handed it was subcl
Am 30.08.21 um 09:48 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
The code was making a copy of a struct ttm_resource. However,
recently the struct ttm_resources were allowed to be subclassed and
also were allowed to be malloced, hence the driver could end up assuming
the copy we handed it was subclassed and wor
The code was making a copy of a struct ttm_resource. However,
recently the struct ttm_resources were allowed to be subclassed and
also were allowed to be malloced, hence the driver could end up assuming
the copy we handed it was subclassed and worse, the original could have
been freed at this point
