On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:33:40PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > > In cdv_intel_lvds_get_modes(), the return value of drm_mode_duplicate() > > is assigned to mode, which will lead to a 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) Would you like 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? > 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
