> -----Original Message----- > From: Zhenhua [mailto:lizhenhuajiyang@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 6:35 AM > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxx; Moore, Robert <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx>; Zheng, Lv > <lv.zheng@xxxxxxxxx>; Wysocki, Rafael J <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>; > lenb@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Zhenhua <lizhenhuajiyang@xxxxxxx> > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] ACPI: NULL pointer checking > > These two pointers should be checked, for some broken devices they may > cause system crash. > > Signed-off-by: Zhenhua <lizhenhuajiyang@xxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/acpi/acpica/nsaccess.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/nsaccess.c > b/drivers/acpi/acpica/nsaccess.c index f2733f51ca8d..151abb0ef4d5 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/nsaccess.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/nsaccess.c > @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ acpi_ns_lookup(union acpi_generic_state *scope_info, > return_ACPI_STATUS(AE_AML_INTERNAL); > } > > - if (!(flags & ACPI_NS_PREFIX_IS_SCOPE)) { > + if ((!prefix_node) && (!(flags & ACPI_NS_PREFIX_IS_SCOPE))) { [Moore, Robert] Is there an actual case where the original code failed? > /* > * This node might not be a actual "scope" node (such as > a > * Device/Method, etc.) It could be a Package or other > object @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ acpi_ns_lookup(union acpi_generic_state > *scope_info, > ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_NAMES, > "Null Pathname (Zero segments), Flags=%X\n", > flags)); > - } else { > + } else if (path) { > /* > * Name pointer is valid (and must be in internal name > format) > * > -- > 2.14.1 > -- 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
