[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6fa2678f-5c50-4abd-96af-1f6c4039185c@web.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 11:03:24 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: XianLiang Huang <huangxianliang@...xincomputing.com>,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, Jörg Rödel
<joro@...tes.org>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Robin Murphy
<robin.murphy@....com>, Tomasz Jeznach <tjeznach@...osinc.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] iommu/riscv: prevent NULL deref in iova_to_phys
…> riscv_iommu_iova_to_phys() failed to handle NULL returns. Fix by adding NULL
> check before dereferencing and returning 0 for invalid iova.
…> ---
> Changes
> v3:
> - Remove redundant pte validation in riscv_iommu_iova_to_phys
> - Improve subject line to emphasize prevention
…
Repetition:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/effb29be-6d14-47e5-ab71-454119467750@web.de/
Would a summary phrase like “Prevent null pointer dereference in riscv_iommu_iova_to_phys()”
be nicer anyhow?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists