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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:03:23 +0200 From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> To: srikanth.h@...sung.com Cc: "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Preventive patch in the pin control subsystem to handle NULL check. Hi Srikanth, thanks for your patch! On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:39 AM Srikanth K H <srikanth.h@...sung.com> wrote: @@ -269,8 +269,9 @@ void pinconf_show_setting(struct seq_file *s, > desc = pin_desc_get(setting->pctldev, > setting->data.configs.group_or_pin); > - seq_printf(s, "pin %s (%d)", desc->name, > - setting->data.configs.group_or_pin); > + if (desc) > + seq_printf(s, "pin %s (%d)", desc->name, > + setting->data.configs.group_or_pin); Under what circumstances do you expect this to happen? Did you provoke it with a real usecase during development? We do not sprinkle NULL or error handling over code that will not derail, and since this is in debugfs we are even more lax. If it annoys users (which would then be developers using debugfs during development), then we need to look into it. Yours, Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists