[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d0bef439-5e1d-4ce0-9a24-da74ddc29755@web.de>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:02:30 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Ma Ke <make24@...as.ac.cn>, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>, Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>,
Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] drm/nouveau: fix null pointer dereference in
nouveau_connector_get_modes
> In nouveau_connector_get_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.
A) 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 passed to
a subsequent call of the function “drm_mode_probed_add” where an undesirable
dereference will be performed then.
Thus add a corresponding return value check.
B) How do you think about to append parentheses to the function name
in the summary phrase?
C) How do you think about to put similar results from static source code
analyses into corresponding patch series?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists