On 7/1/22 10:47, Alex Natalsson wrote:
>> Wow. So there's already a problem with a config and we made it worse...
>>
>> Can you try with this hack attached, just to see what causes the kernel
>> oops? Thanks!
>
> Hello friends)
> I modified your hack a little. And I don't understanding what is fe
> and be, but I see what problem apearing due to be_substream points to
> 0.
> The
> "if (!fe_substream->pcm->nonatomic && be_substream->pcm->nonatomic) {"
> at result gives the error...
>
> * I am sorry what delete recipients in the previous send((
Interesting, thanks for the test results!
[ 108.090732] dpcm_be_connect: start
[ 108.090734] dpcm_be_connect: 1
[ 108.090735] dpcm_be_connect: 3
[ 108.090737] dpcm_be_connect: 3.1
[ 108.090738] dpcm_be_connect: 3.1 fe_substream_addr=128378368
[ 108.090740] dpcm_be_connect: 3.1 be_substream_addr=0
[ 108.090750] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
virtual address 0000000000000000
Indeed it looks like we are de-referencing a NULL pointer, be_substream
isn't initialized.
we could add a simple error check as in the diff below but I don't know
what the root cause might be
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
index a827cc3c158a..093b98b0e394 100644
--- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
+++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
@@ -1203,6 +1203,15 @@ static int dpcm_be_connect(struct
snd_soc_pcm_runtime *fe,
fe_substream = snd_soc_dpcm_get_substream(fe, stream);
be_substream = snd_soc_dpcm_get_substream(be, stream);
+ if (!fe_substream) {
+ dev_err(fe->dev, "%s: fe_substream not initialized\n",
__func__);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ if (!be_substream) {
+ dev_err(be->dev, "%s: be_substream not initialized\n",
__func__);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
if (!fe_substream->pcm->nonatomic && be_substream->pcm->nonatomic) {
dev_err(be->dev, "%s: FE is atomic but BE is nonatomic,
invalid configuration\n",
__func__);
