linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] can: softing: remove redundant NULL check

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: <12cd0fd0-be86-4af0-8d6b-85d3a81edd2a@hartkopp.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:47:43 +0100
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Daniil Dulov <d.dulov@...ddin.ru>
Cc: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
 Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Kurt Van Dijck <dev.kurt@...dijck-laurijssen.be>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: softing: remove redundant NULL check

Hi Simon,

I have a general question on the "Fixes:" tag in this patch:

On 16.02.24 18:27, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 07:05:35AM -0800, Daniil Dulov wrote:
>> In this case dev cannot be NULL, so remove redundant check.
>>
>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
>>
>> Fixes: 03fd3cf5a179 ("can: add driver for Softing card")

IMHO this is simply an improvement which is done by all patches applied 
to the kernel but it does not really "fix" anything from a functional 
standpoint.

Shouldn't we either invent a new tag or better leave it out to not 
confuse the stable maintainers?

Best regards,
Oliver

>> Signed-off-by: Daniil Dulov <d.dulov@...ddin.ru>
> 
> Hi Daniil,
> 
> I am not sure that dev cannot be NULL.
> But I do see that the code assumes it is not, and would crash if it is.
> So I think that, functionally, your statement is correct.
> 
> 	priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> 	card = priv->card;
> 
> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
>