[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a2aa3091-4a93-48be-970a-8bc506fb0cd3@web.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 16:56:04 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Daniel Thompson <daniel@...cstar.com>,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: iommu: Fix NULL pointer deref when io_page_fault tracepoint fires
>> …
>>> Fix this by adding logic to the tracepoint to safely propagate NULL.
>>
>> * How do you think about to add any tags (like “Fixes” and “Cc”) accordingly?
>
> I could add a
>
> Fixes: f8f934c180f6 ("iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for driver IOMMU fault handlers")
>
> However, who do you think I neglected to Cc:?
See also once more:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.19-rc5#n262
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst?h=v6.19-rc5#n34
>> * Would a summary phrase like “Prevent null pointer dereference for a tracepoint”
>> be a bit nicer?
>
> I don't understand what is wrong with the original phrasing. Can you
> explain why this change matters to you?
* Questionable abbreviation “deref”
* when clause
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists