Re: [FIX] Re: 2.5.66 new fbcon oops while loading X

2 messages, 2 authors, 2003-03-27 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [FIX] Re: 2.5.66 new fbcon oops while loading X

From: James Simmons <hidden>
Date: 2003-03-26 19:54:36

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 05:23:07PM +0000, James Simmons wrote:
quoted
quoted
While loading X, I get this oops. The weird thing is that I don't use
framebuffer. I compiled with gcc 3.2.2 but the code generated looks weird.
Virgin gcc 3.2.2 on a pentium III.
You don't use framebuffer? Can you send me your config. 
Ok, I've found the bug, it is in fb_open() in drivers/video/fbmem.c, it
needs this addition:

        if(fbidx >= FB_MAX)
                return -ENODEV;

Without it, large minor numbers result in access beyond the end of
registered_fb.

On Debian, ls /dev/fb[67] results in:
crw--w--w-    1 root     tty       29, 192 Nov 30  2000 /dev/fb6
crw--w--w-    1 root     tty       29, 224 Nov 30  2000 /dev/fb7

On Red Hat this is: 
crw-------    1 root     root      29,   7 Apr 11  2002 /dev/fb7
crw-------    1 root     root      29,   8 Apr 11  2002 /dev/fb8

Which explains why many don't see this bug.
Ah. That explains it. I will apply the fix.

Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] Re: [FIX] Re: 2.5.66 new fbcon oops while loading X

From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date: 2003-03-27 09:00:50

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, James Simmons wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 05:23:07PM +0000, James Simmons wrote:
quoted
quoted
While loading X, I get this oops. The weird thing is that I don't use
framebuffer. I compiled with gcc 3.2.2 but the code generated looks weird.
Virgin gcc 3.2.2 on a pentium III.
You don't use framebuffer? Can you send me your config. 
Ok, I've found the bug, it is in fb_open() in drivers/video/fbmem.c, it
needs this addition:

        if(fbidx >= FB_MAX)
                return -ENODEV;

Without it, large minor numbers result in access beyond the end of
registered_fb.

On Debian, ls /dev/fb[67] results in:
crw--w--w-    1 root     tty       29, 192 Nov 30  2000 /dev/fb6
crw--w--w-    1 root     tty       29, 224 Nov 30  2000 /dev/fb7

On Red Hat this is: 
crw-------    1 root     root      29,   7 Apr 11  2002 /dev/fb7
crw-------    1 root     root      29,   8 Apr 11  2002 /dev/fb8

Which explains why many don't see this bug.
Ah. That explains it. I will apply the fix.
Note that Debian seems to use the old numbering that was obsoleted in 2.4.0.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There!
NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today!
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help