linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drm/gma500: fix null pointer dereference in cdv_intel_lvds_get

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2024062731-left-cackle-4fc4@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 13:44:39 +0200
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: Ma Ke <make24@...as.ac.cn>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
	Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.r.jakobsson@...il.com>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/gma500: fix null pointer dereference in
 cdv_intel_lvds_get_modes

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:33:40PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > In cdv_intel_lvds_get_modes(), the return value of drm_mode_duplicate()
> > is assigned to mode, which will lead to a 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) Would you like 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?
> 

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