Hi guys > Julia Lawall wrote: > > [...] > > --- > > drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c | 3 --- > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > > index 218b9a1..5306901 100644 > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > > @@ -745,9 +745,6 @@ static int acpi_fujitsu_remove(struct acpi_device *device, int type) > > > > fujitsu = acpi_driver_data(device); > > > > - if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device)) > > - return -EINVAL; > > - > > Shouldn't this still do a: > > if (!fujitsu) > return -EINVAL; > > to avoid dereferencing a NULL pointer below? Hmm, yes it should. Well spotted. And I'm not certain how the duplicate test on "device" got in there in the first place. I suspect it came about due to some structural changes made a few versions ago and I failed to notice that the second check became redundant. So, combining this with the above patch we should instead do Signed-off-by: jwoithe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <Jonathan Woithe> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c 2009-06-12 19:51:45.333234000 +0930 +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c 2009-07-29 10:14:30.610249941 +0930 @@ -745,7 +745,7 @@ static int acpi_fujitsu_remove(struct ac fujitsu = acpi_driver_data(device); - if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device)) + if (!fujitsu) return -EINVAL; fujitsu->acpi_handle = NULL; Regards jonathan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
