[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4704cbab-de5a-4c0b-ac71-4fba0fe8b5c3@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 09:10:34 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Tanya Agarwal <tanyaagarwal25699@...il.com>, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de
Cc: x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
skhan@...uxfoundation.org, anupnewsmail@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] x86/mm: Fix NULL pointer dereference in
kernel_page_present()
On 1/11/25 09:58, Tanya Agarwal wrote:
> From: Tanya Agarwal <tanyaagarwal25699@...il.com>
>
> The static code analysis tool "Coverity Scan" pointed the following
> details out for further development considerations:
> CID 1271215: Dereference null return value (NULL_RETURNS)
> dereference: Dereferencing pte, which is known to be NULL.
I think we need an actual changelog for this, as opposed to just blindly
trusting Coverity. You can say that Coverity helped identify this as an
issue, but we don't need the "CID" or other Coverity gunk in our
changelogs. We don't care.
Could you please elaborate on where this issue might affect people? It's
also entirely theoretical as far as I can tell. I can't even conjure up
a contrived case where it could be triggered.
We won't do _anything_ with this patch until the merge window closes, so
you've got at least a week to spruce up the changelog.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists