[PATCH 3.9-table] NTB: fix pointer math issues

[Jonghwan Choi]

From: Dan Carpenter <dan.ca...@oracle.com>

This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
it?

------------------

From: "Dan Carpenter <dan.ca...@oracle.com>"

commit cc0f868d8adef7bdc12cda132654870086d766bc upstream

->remote_rx_info and ->rx_info are struct ntb_rx_info pointers. If we
add sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info) then it goes too far.

Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org> # 3.9.x: ad3e2751: ntb: off by one
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.ca...@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Jon Mason <jon....@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonghwan Choi <jhbir...@samsung.com>
---
drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c b/drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c
index e0bdfd7..676ee16 100644
--- a/drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c
+++ b/drivers/ntb/ntb_transport.c
@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ static void ntb_transport_setup_qp_mw(struct ntb_transport *nt,
(qp_num / NTB_NUM_MW * rx_size);
rx_size -= sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info);

- qp->rx_buff = qp->remote_rx_info + sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info);
+ qp->rx_buff = qp->remote_rx_info + 1;
qp->rx_max_frame = min(transport_mtu, rx_size);
qp->rx_max_entry = rx_size / qp->rx_max_frame;
qp->rx_index = 0;
@@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ static void ntb_transport_init_queue(struct ntb_transport *nt,
(qp_num / NTB_NUM_MW * tx_size);
tx_size -= sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info);

- qp->tx_mw = qp->rx_info + sizeof(struct ntb_rx_info);
+ qp->tx_mw = qp->rx_info + 1;
qp->tx_max_frame = min(transport_mtu, tx_size);
qp->tx_max_entry = tx_size / qp->tx_max_frame;
qp->tx_index = 0;
--
1.8.1.2

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Dan Carpenter]

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:39:05AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote:
> From: Dan Carpenter <dan.ca...@oracle.com>
>
> This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
> it?
>

Normally these questions are handled by the subsystem maintainer.

regards,
dan carpenter

[jonghwan Choi]

Thanks for your advice.

Best Regards.

[Jon Mason]

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:39:05AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote:

> From: Dan Carpenter <dan.ca...@oracle.com>
>
> This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
> it?

Yes, thanks.