On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 16:59 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > When __acpi_match_device() is called it would be possible to have
> > ACPI ID table a MULL pointer. To avoid potential dereference,
> > check for this before traverse.
> >
> > While here, remove redundant 'else'.
> >
> >
> > + if (ids) {
> > + for (id = ids; id->id[0] || id->cls; id++) {
> > + if (id->id[0] && !strcmp((char *)id-
> > >id, hwid->id))
> > + return id;
> > + if (id->cls &&
> > __acpi_match_device_cls(id, hwid))
> > + return id;
> > + }
> >
>
> The return value below should be updated in *this* patch, because this
> is what allows ids to be NULL in the first place.
OK, so I'll fold it into patch 1 then.
> And as far as I'm concerned you can do:
>
> if (!strcmp(ACPI_DT_NAMESPACE_HID, hwid->id)
> return (const struct acpi_device_id
> *)acpi_of_match_device(device, of_ids);
>
> and update the comment accordingly.
But it's still a trick.
Okay, what comes to my mind (yes, not so simple, but cleaner I suppose)
is to define
struct acpi_of_device_id {
struct acpi_device_id *acpi_id;
struct of_device_id *of_id;
};
Add a new parameter to acpi_of_match_device(..., struct
acpi_of_device_id *id).
Update __acpi_match_device() in the similar way.
Update callers.
It looks to me much more cleaner.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy
--
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
