Nouveau - Jun 2024 - [v3] drm/nouveau: fix null pointer dereference in nouveau_connector_get_modes

Ma Ke - I assume you already know but you can just ignore this message
from Markus as it is just spam. Sorry about the trouble!

Markus, you've already been asked by Greg so I will ask a bit more
sternly in case there is actually a person on the other end: you've
already been asked to stop by Greg and are being ignored by multiple
kernel maintainers. If I keep seeing messages like this from you I will
assume you are a bot and I will block your email from both DRI related
mailing lists (nouveau and dri-devel) accordingly. You've done this 3
times now.

(...I doubt I'll get a response from Markus, but I certainly want to
make sure they are a bot and not an actual person before removing them
:)

On Thu, 2024-06-27 at 11:02 +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > In nouveau_connector_get_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.
> 
> A) 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
> passed to
> ?? a subsequent call of the function ?drm_mode_probed_add? where an
> undesirable
> ?? dereference will be performed then.
> ?? Thus add a corresponding return value check.
> 
> 
> B) How do you think about to append parentheses to the function name
> ?? in the summary phrase?
> 
> 
> C) How do you think about to put similar results from static source
> code
> ?? analyses into corresponding patch series?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Markus
> 
-- 
Cheers,
 Lyude Paul (she/her)
 Software Engineer at Red Hat

> (...I doubt I'll get a response from Markus,
Why?

>                                              but I certainly want to
> make sure they are a bot
Can I ever adjust your views into more desirable directions
(as it occasionally happened with other contributors)?

>                          and not an actual person before removing them
I hope still that affected development discussions can become
more constructive again.

Regards,
Markus