On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:26:12 +0200 Borislav Petkov <b...@amd64.org> wrote:
> From: Denis Kirjanov <kirja...@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:30:58 +0400 > Subject: [PATCH] amd64_edac: Fix hypothetical out-of-bounds access > > Make sure we stay within scrubrates' array bounds. > > Boris: this is a correctness fix only because the loop terminates > earlier due to us capping scrubbing bandwidth to 0. > > Signed-off-by: Denis Kirjanov <kirja...@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <borislav.pet...@amd.com> > --- > drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c | 14 ++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c b/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c > index 501bfb938f26..73d9108d6200 100644 > --- a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c > +++ b/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c > @@ -181,14 +181,16 @@ static int __amd64_set_scrub_rate(struct pci_dev *ctl, > u32 new_bw, u32 min_rate) > > if (scrubrates[i].bandwidth <= new_bw) > break; > - > - /* > - * if no suitable bandwidth found, turn off DRAM scrubbing > - * entirely by falling back to the last element in the > - * scrubrates array. > - */ > } > > + /* > + * if no suitable bandwidth found, turn off DRAM scrubbing > + * entirely by falling back to the last element in the scrubrates > + * array. > + */ > + if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(scrubrates)) > + i--; > + > scrubval = scrubrates[i].scrubval; > > pci_write_bits32(ctl, SCRCTRL, scrubval, 0x001F); This is still strange. What's the point in having the initial loop even consider the last element in the array if we know we'll be using it anyway? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
