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
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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