PCI: Fix typo in pax_open/close_kernel wrapping
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 PCI: Fix typo in pax_open/close_kernel wrapping
This fixes a mistaken double-open in PaX's constification coverage of cpcihp_zt5550.
--- drivers/pci/hotplug/cpcihp_zt5550.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
drivers/pci/hotplug/cpcihp_zt5550.c +1 -1
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ static int zt5550_hc_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *const_cast (zt5550_hpc_ops.enable_irq) = zt5550_hc_enable_irq;const_cast (zt5550_hpc_ops.disable_irq) = zt5550_hc_disable_irq;const_cast (zt5550_hpc_ops.check_irq) = zt5550_hc_check_irq; -pax_open_kernel (); +pax_close_kernel (); }else {info ("using ENUM# polling mode" ); }
Signature · 6 lines
2.7.4 -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
Quoted 2 lines · Kees Cook
This fixes a mistaken double-open in PaX's constification coverage of
cpcihp_zt5550.
patch complains with:
checking file drivers/pci/hotplug/cpcihp_zt5550.c Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
are you sure you're looking at a recent tree?
Quoted 11 lines · PaX Team
Quoted 2 lines · Kees Cook
This fixes a mistaken double-open in PaX's constification coverage of
cpcihp_zt5550.patch complains with:
checking file
drivers/pci/hotplug/cpcihp_zt5550.cReversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]are you sure you're looking at a recent tree?
I guess not! Sorry for the noise. This was from pax-linux-4.9.9-test3.patch.
-Kees
Signature · 2 lines
Kees Cook Pixel Security
Quoted 6 lines · Kees Cook
Quoted 5 lines · PaX Team
Quoted 2 lines · Kees Cook
This fixes a mistaken double-open in PaX's constification coverage of
cpcihp_zt5550.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
patch complains with:
checking file
drivers/pci/hotplug/cpcihp_zt5550.cReversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]are you sure you're looking at a recent tree?
I guess not! Sorry for the noise. This was from pax-linux-4.9.9-test3.patch.
Actually, it looks like it's an error in the grsecurity merge of PaX. The mistake is present in the current grsecurity testing patch:
https://grsecurity.net/test/grsecurity-3.1-4.9.13-201702270729.patch
-Kees
Signature · 2 lines
Kees Cook Pixel Security
Quoted 7 lines · Kees Cook
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
are you sure you're looking at a recent tree?
I guess not! Sorry for the noise. This was from pax-linux-4.9.9-test3.patch.
Actually, it looks like it's an error in the grsecurity merge of PaX. The mistake is present in the current grsecurity testing patch:
https://grsecurity.net/test/grsecurity-3.1-4.9.13-201702270729.patch
he doesn't take such low priority fixes immediately (i found this regression myself only a few days ago during the 4.10 port) but collects a few more of them before making a new release.