linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] ASoC: Intel: Skylake: Check the kcontrol against NULL

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: <371e612ac59c458cad1bafb82ca09c9f@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:41:16 +0000
From:   "Rojewski, Cezary" <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Łukasz Majczak <lma@...ihalf.com>
CC:     Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mateusz Gorski <mateusz.gorski@...ux.intel.com>,
        Radoslaw Biernacki <rad@...ihalf.com>,
        "Alex Levin" <levinale@...gle.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>,
        "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Amadeusz Sławiński 
        <amadeuszx.slawinski@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] ASoC: Intel: Skylake: Check the kcontrol against NULL

On 2021-01-20 5:33 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 1/20/21 9:49 AM, Łukasz Majczak wrote:
>> Hi Pierre,
>>
>> Is there anything more to do to get the ACK for this patch?
> 
> Adding Cezary and Amadeusz for feedback, I can't pretend having any sort 
> of knowledge on the Skylake driver internals and topology usage.
> 

Thanks for the CC, Pierre.

...

>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-topology.c 
>>>> b/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-topology.c
>>>> index ae466cd592922..8f0bfda7096a9 100644
>>>> --- a/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-topology.c
>>>> +++ b/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-topology.c
>>>> @@ -3618,12 +3618,18 @@ static void skl_tplg_complete(struct 
>>>> snd_soc_component *component)
>>>>          int i;
>>>>
>>>>          list_for_each_entry(dobj, &component->dobj_list, list) {
>>>> -               struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol = dobj->control.kcontrol;
>>>> -               struct soc_enum *se =
>>>> -                       (struct soc_enum *)kcontrol->private_value;
>>>> -               char **texts = dobj->control.dtexts;
>>>> +               struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol;
>>>> +               struct soc_enum *se;
>>>> +               char **texts;
>>>>                  char chan_text[4];
>>>>
>>>> +               kcontrol = dobj->control.kcontrol;
>>>> +               if (!kcontrol)
>>>> +                       continue;
>>>> +
>>>> +               se = (struct soc_enum *)kcontrol->private_value;
>>>> +               texts = dobj->control.dtexts;
>>>> +
>>>>                  if (dobj->type != SND_SOC_DOBJ_ENUM ||
>>>>                      dobj->control.kcontrol->put !=
>>>>                      skl_tplg_multi_config_set_dmic)

Just checked the history behind this. And must say, I liked Ricardo's
version better. Except for the "= {};" bit which Mark already pointed
out - it should be a separate fix - it's simply more optional

e.g.: 'kcontrol' gets assigned yet 'if' above is not updated accordingly:
s/dobj->control.kcontrol->put/kcontrol->put

Czarek