linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: da9063: fix null pointer deref with partial DT config

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]

Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2023 09:46:03 +0200
From:   "Fuzzey, Martin" <martin.fuzzey@...wbird.group>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Support Opensource <support.opensource@...semi.com>,
        Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@...data.com>,
        Adam Ward <DLG-Adam.Ward.opensource@...renesas.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: da9063: fix null pointer deref with partial
 DT config

Hi Mark,

there seems to have been a mix up here.

On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 at 01:21, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 17:11:02 +0200, Martin Fuzzey wrote:
> > When some of the da9063 regulators do not have corresponding DT nodes
> > a null pointer dereference occurs on boot:
>
> Applied to
>
>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git for-next
>
> Thanks!
>
> [1/1] regulator: da9063: fix null pointer deref with partial DT config
>       commit: b9e6bee2bcb144d0eac0ac3d8826ae73c54a50df
>

I originally sent V1 of this patch
[https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230616143736.2946173-1-martin.fuzzey@flowbird.group/]
You gave a review comment that it may still not work with some
compiler so I sent V2
[https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230622151146.1459250-1-martin.fuzzey@flowbird.group/]

There are replies to *both* of these saying they were applied.

But the code now in mainline 98e2dd5f7a8be5cb2501a897e96910393a49f0ff
corresponds to the V1
This has also propagated to stable now.

So I'm not quite sure what happened here.

It's probably not really that important, the V1 works on my compiler
(gcc 9.4) at least, not sure if other versions will really have
problems.

Regards,

Martin