linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH next] regulator: rt5133: Fix IS_ERR() vs NULL bug in rt5133_validate_vendor

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: <175563283433.270234.3651916456363956419.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 20:47:14 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Jeff Chang <jeff_chang@...htek.com>, 
 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
 kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] regulator: rt5133: Fix IS_ERR() vs NULL bug in
 rt5133_validate_vendor_info()

On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 09:49:46 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The "priv->cdata" pointer isn't an error pointer, it should be a NULL
> check instead.  Otherwise it leads to a NULL pointer dereference in the
> caller, rt5133_probe().
> 
> 

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] regulator: rt5133: Fix IS_ERR() vs NULL bug in rt5133_validate_vendor_info()
      commit: f7f804633c91f0fbf03eefbae39eec2205191a82

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark