On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> my intention here is very simple: there's a way you should call
> device_lookup and everyone has to fulfill it's part of the contract.
> all our devices do, vscsi doesn't. what's the reason for it to be
> one of a kind?
I'm ok with adding
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:35 -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > my intention here is very simple: there's a way you should call
> > device_lookup and everyone has to fulfill it's part of the contract.
> > all our devices do, vscsi doesn't.
On 10 May 2013 14:57, Gerhard Roth wrote:
> Mike,
>
> but it does check in vscsiopen(). Hence no userland program should be
> able to call vscsiioctl() for a non-existant device because the open()
> already failed. At least that's true as long as vscsi devices can't
> disappear during run-time.
>
Mike,
but it does check in vscsiopen(). Hence no userland program should be
able to call vscsiioctl() for a non-existant device because the open()
already failed. At least that's true as long as vscsi devices can't
disappear during run-time.
Gerhard
On Fri, 10 May 2013 14:44:39 +0200 Mike Belop
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 16:19 +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> hi,
>
> while looking for the device_unref bugs, i found that
> vscsi doesn't check if device_lookup has returned a
> valid return value.
>
> ok?
>
anyone?
> diff --git sys/dev/vscsi.c sys/dev/vscsi.c
> index 3da371c..db65642 100644
hi,
while looking for the device_unref bugs, i found that
vscsi doesn't check if device_lookup has returned a
valid return value.
ok?
diff --git sys/dev/vscsi.c sys/dev/vscsi.c
index 3da371c..db65642 100644
--- sys/dev/vscsi.c
+++ sys/dev/vscsi.c
@@ -296,6 +296,9 @@ vscsiioctl(dev_t dev, u_long
