[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2024062533-quiver-cacti-b068@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:30:41 +0200
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: Ma Ke <make24@...as.ac.cn>, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>,
Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/dispnv04: fix null pointer dereference in
nv17_tv_get_ld_modes
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 03:43:37PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > In nv17_tv_get_ld_modes(), the return value of drm_mode_duplicate() is
> > assigned to mode, which will lead to a possible NULL pointer dereference
> > on failure of drm_mode_duplicate(). Add a check to avoid npd.
>
> Can a wording approach (like the following) be a better change description?
>
> A null pointer is stored in the local variable “mode” after a call
> of the function “drm_mode_duplicate” failed. This pointer was used
> in a subsequent statement where an undesirable dereference will
> be performed then.
> Thus add a corresponding return value check.
>
>
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>
> Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” accordingly?
>
>
> How do you think about to use a summary phrase like
> “Prevent null pointer dereference in nv17_tv_get_ld_modes()”?
>
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
Hi,
This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.
Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list. I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore. Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.
Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all. The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback. Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot
Powered by blists - more mailing lists