[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071129.122245.-1300543769.kouish@swc.toshiba.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:22:45 +0900 (JST)
From: Ishizaki Kou <kou.ishizaki@...hiba.co.jp>
To: gorcunov@...il.com
Cc: michael@...erman.id.au, olof@...om.net, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
paulus@...ba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPC: CELLEB - fix potential NULL pointer dereference
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/07, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> > On 11/28/07, Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 10:46 +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > > > This patch adds checking for NULL value returned to prevent possible
> > > > NULL pointer dereference.
> > > > Also two unneeded 'return' are removed.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Any comments are welcome.
> > >
> > > I guess it's good to be paranoid, but this is a little verbose:
> > >
> > > wi0 = of_get_property(node, "device-id", NULL);
> > > + if (unlikely((!wi0))) {
> > > + printk(KERN_ERR "PCI: device-id not found.\n");
> > > + goto error;
> > > + }
> > > wi1 = of_get_property(node, "vendor-id", NULL);
> > > + if (unlikely((!wi1))) {
> > > + printk(KERN_ERR "PCI: vendor-id not found.\n");
> > > + goto error;
> > > + }
> > > wi2 = of_get_property(node, "class-code", NULL);
> > > + if (unlikely((!wi2))) {
> > > + printk(KERN_ERR "PCI: class-code not found.\n");
> > > + goto error;
> > > + }
> > > wi3 = of_get_property(node, "revision-id", NULL);
> > > + if (unlikely((!wi3))) {
> > > + printk(KERN_ERR "PCI: revision-id not found.\n");
> > > + goto error;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > Perhaps instead:
> > >
> > > wi0 = of_get_property(node, "device-id", NULL);
> > > wi1 = of_get_property(node, "vendor-id", NULL);
> > > wi2 = of_get_property(node, "class-code", NULL);
> > > wi3 = of_get_property(node, "revision-id", NULL);
> > >
> > > if (!wi0 || !wi1 || !wi2 || !wi3) {
> > > printk(KERN_ERR "PCI: Missing device tree properties.\n");
> > > goto error;
> > > }
> >
> > Hi Michael, yes that is much better (actually I was doubt about what form of
> > which the checking style to use - your form is much compact but mine does
> > show where *exactly* the problem appeared). So 'case that is the fake driver
> > your form is preferred ;) Ishizaki, could you use Michael's part then?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Ellerman
> > > OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab
> > >
> > > wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au
> > > phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)
> > >
> > > We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
> > > we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Cyrill
> >
> Ishizaki I can update the patch if you needed. Should I?
>
> Cyrill
There is no problem to use Michael's part, and I also prefer simple
one like this.
Cyrill, would you please update your patch?
Best regards,
Kou Ishizaki
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists