On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Jonathan Woithe wrote: > 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. If you are going to check fujitsu afterwards, then I think there is no need to test the result of acpi_driver_data before. julia > 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 kernel-janitors" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- 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
