[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250822023611.18145-1-huangxianliang@lanxincomputing.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 10:36:11 +0800
From: "XianLiang Huang" <huangxianliang@...xincomputing.com>
To: <markus.elfring@....de>
Cc: <alex@...ti.fr>, <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
<huangxianliang@...xincomputing.com>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
<joro@...tes.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <palmer@...belt.com>,
<paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, <robin.murphy@....com>,
<tjeznach@...osinc.com>, <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [v4] iommu/riscv: prevent NULL deref in iova_to_phys
> I suggest to take another look for the better distinction of mentioned key words.
I misunderstood this
>> …> Check the pointer before using it to avoid the bug. …
> Would a summary phrase like “Prevent null pointer dereference in riscv_iommu_iova_to_phys()”
> be also helpful?
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/effb29be-6d14-47e5-ab71-454119467750@web.de/
>> > Changes
>> > v4:
>> > - Change the summary as Markus recommends
>> >
>> > v3:
>> > - Remove redundant pte validation in riscv_iommu_iova_to_phys
>> > - Improve subject line to emphasize prevention
> Does anything hinder you to integrate repeated patch review ideas better
> into your contributions?
Do you suggest merge the repeated patch changlogs?
may a RESEND v3:
- Remove redundant pte validation in riscv_iommu_iova_to_phys
- Improve summary and description to emphasize prevention as Markus recommends
Regards,
Xianliang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists