linux-kernel - Re: pnp_bus_resume(): inconsequent NULL checking

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:00:43 +0100
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
CC:	ambx1@....rr.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
Subject: Re: pnp_bus_resume(): inconsequent NULL checking

On 19-02-08 23:49, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> The Coverity checker spotted the following inconsequent NULL checking 
> introduced by commit 5d38998ed15b31f524bde9a193d60150af30d916:
> 
> <--  snip  -->
> 
> ...
> static int pnp_bus_resume(struct device *dev)
> {
> ...
>         if (pnp_dev->protocol && pnp_dev->protocol->resume)
>                 pnp_dev->protocol->resume(pnp_dev);
> 
>         if (pnp_can_write(pnp_dev)) {
> ...
> 
> <--  snip  -->
> 
> pnp_can_write(pnp_dev) dereferences pnp_dev->protocol.

I see, thanks. pnp_bus_suspend() has the same problem (I added this test to 
complete the mirror in fact) and/but is not a real problem since the tests 
are also the first things done inside the blocks they protect -- if 
pnp_dev->protocol isn't set here, we're dead anyway therefore.

That probably means we can just delete the pnp_dev->protocol tests but this 
  would need an ack from for example Bjorn Helgaas who might have an idea 
about how generically useful this is designed to be. The no brain thing to 
do would be just as per attached.

Bjorn?

View attachment "coverity-pnp_bus_suspend_resume.diff" of type "text/plain" (1682 bytes)