linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/mellanox: mlxreg-lc: Check before variable dereferenced

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:   Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:47:28 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To:     Yu Sun <u202112062@...t.edu.cn>
Cc:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
        Vadim Pasternak <vadimp@...dia.com>,
        hust-os-kernel-patches@...glegroups.com,
        Dongliang Mu <dzm91@...t.edu.cn>,
        Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/mellanox: mlxreg-lc: Check before variable
 dereferenced

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 05:44:07PM +0800, Yu Sun wrote:
> there is a warning saying variable dereferenced before
> check 'data->notifier' in line 828.
> add "for(data->notifier)" before variable deferenced.
       ^^^
Should have been "if (data->notifier)".

> 
> Signed-off-by: Yu Sun <u202112062@...t.edu.cn>
> Reviewed-by: Dongliang Mu <dzm91@...t.edu.cn>
> Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>

I didn't really explicitly give a Reviewed-by tag for this patch.
https://groups.google.com/g/hust-os-kernel-patches/c/c5hUaYIDcII/m/h4aFS7PkCQAJ
I also said that I thought it looked correct but that it needed a Fixes:
tag however the Fixes tag I suggested was wrong.

Looking at it now, the correct Fixes tag would be:
Fixes: 1c8ee06b637f ("platform/mellanox: Remove unnecessary code")

That commit says that the NULL check is not required.  So now I'm
confused.  On the one hand, the impulse is to trust the maintainer, but
on the other hand my review suggested that the NULL check might be
required.

regards,
dan carpenter