Nouveau - Jun 2024 - [PATCH] drm/nouveau/dispnv04: fix null pointer dereference in nv17_tv_get_ld_modes

> In nv17_tv_get_ld_modes(), the return value of drm_mode_duplicate() is
> assigned to mode, which will lead to a possible NULL pointer dereference
> on failure of drm_mode_duplicate(). Add a check to avoid npd.
Can a wording approach (like the following) be a better change description?

  A null pointer is stored in the local variable ?mode? after a call
  of the function ?drm_mode_duplicate? failed. This pointer was used
  in a subsequent statement where an undesirable dereference will
  be performed then.
  Thus add a corresponding return value check.

> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org
Would you like to add the tag ?Fixes? accordingly?


How do you think about to use a summary phrase like
?Prevent null pointer dereference in nv17_tv_get_ld_modes()??


Regards,
Markus

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 03:43:37PM +0200, Markus Elfring
wrote:
> > In nv17_tv_get_ld_modes(), the return value of drm_mode_duplicate() is
> > assigned to mode, which will lead to a possible NULL pointer
dereference
> > on failure of drm_mode_duplicate(). Add a check to avoid npd.
> 
> Can a wording approach (like the following) be a better change description?
> 
>   A null pointer is stored in the local variable ?mode? after a call
>   of the function ?drm_mode_duplicate? failed. This pointer was used
>   in a subsequent statement where an undesirable dereference will
>   be performed then.
>   Thus add a corresponding return value check.
> 
> 
> > Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org
> 
> Would you like to add the tag ?Fixes? accordingly?
> 
> 
> How do you think about to use a summary phrase like
> ?Prevent null pointer dereference in nv17_tv_get_ld_modes()??
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Markus
> 
Hi,

This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.

Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list.  I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore.  Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.

Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all.  The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback.  Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot