On 11/8/17 11:06 AM, Andrew Banman wrote:
If there are uninitialized SMIs in the smi_infos list, i.e. with no
handlers set, then disable_si_irq() in cleanup_smi_one() will hit a null
pointer dereference when the former attempts to start the check enables
transaction. Thus, we panic during module exit.
I think this points to a broader problem of holding uninitialized smi_info
structs in smi_infos list. There are many places where handlers and other struct
members are assumed. Maybe a better design would be to remove SMIs from the list
if we have no intention of initializing them?
Andrew
Avoid panicking when there are uninitialized SMIs by checking for a handler
pointer before starting the check enables transaction.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Banman <[email protected]>
---
drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
index cb5719e..6c0b1b3 100644
--- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
+++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
@@ -442,7 +442,7 @@ static void start_check_enables(struct smi_info *smi_info,
bool start_timer)
if (start_timer)
start_new_msg(smi_info, msg, 2);
- else
+ else if (smi_info->handlers)
smi_info->handlers->start_transaction(smi_info->si_sm, msg, 2);
smi_info->si_state = SI_CHECKING_ENABLES;
}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Openipmi-developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
