[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190817065146.GA4451@kadam>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 09:51:46 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Cc: Harry Wentland <harry.wentland@....com>,
Leo Li <sunpeng.li@....com>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
David Zhou <David1.Zhou@....com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][drm-next] drm/amd/display: fix a potential null pointer
dereference
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:10:11PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>
> Currently the pointer init_data is dereferenced on the assignment
> of fw_info before init_data is sanity checked to see if it is null.
> Fix te potential null pointer dereference on init_data by only
> performing dereference after it is null checked.
>
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Dereference before null check")
> Fixes: 9adc8050bf3c ("drm/amd/display: make firmware info only load once during dc_bios create")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dce/dce_clock_source.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dce/dce_clock_source.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dce/dce_clock_source.c
> index bee81bf288be..926954c804a6 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dce/dce_clock_source.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dce/dce_clock_source.c
> @@ -1235,7 +1235,7 @@ static bool calc_pll_max_vco_construct(
> struct calc_pll_clock_source_init_data *init_data)
> {
> uint32_t i;
> - struct dc_firmware_info *fw_info = &init_data->bp->fw_info;
> + struct dc_firmware_info *fw_info;
> if (calc_pll_cs == NULL ||
> init_data == NULL ||
> init_data->bp == NULL)
init_data can't be NULL. I'm mostly pointing this out because that NULL
check is written so higgledy-piggledy. At first I thought this was
staging code so I was planning to ignore the patch. :P
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists