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
