linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/1] scsi: ufs: Fix a possible NULL pointer issue

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]

Message-ID: <7eb8f335f4eb85385f54c88952f7749750340320.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Dec 2020 15:32:25 +0100
From:   Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
To:     Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>, asutoshd@...eaurora.org,
        nguyenb@...eaurora.org, hongwus@...eaurora.org,
        rnayak@...eaurora.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, saravanak@...gle.com, salyzyn@...gle.com
Cc:     Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/1] scsi: ufs: Fix a possible NULL pointer issue

On Sun, 2020-12-13 at 19:41 -0800, Can Guo wrote:
> Fixes: 88a92d6ae4fe ("scsi: ufs: Serialize eh_work with system PM
> events and async scan")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 9 +++++----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> index c1c401b..ef155a9 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> @@ -8883,8 +8883,11 @@ int ufshcd_system_suspend(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>         int ret = 0;
>         ktime_t start = ktime_get();
>  
> +       if (!hba)
> +               return 0;
> +
>         down(&hba->eh_sem);
> -       if (!hba || !hba->is_powered)
> +       if (!hba->is_powered)
>                 return 0;


Can,

why not moving down(&hba->eh_sem) after "return 0;"?