On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:25:35 +0900 Jingoo Han <jg1.han@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:02 AM, Andrew Morton wrote
> > On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:29:11 +0900
> > Jingoo Han <jg1.han@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > NULL deference of name is checked when device is registered.
> > > If the name is null, it will cause a kernel oops in dev_set_name().
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c
> > > @@ -292,6 +292,11 @@ struct backlight_device *backlight_device_register(const char *name,
> > > struct backlight_device *new_bd;
> > > int rc;
> > >
> > > + if (name == NULL) {
> > > + pr_err("backlight name is null\n");
> > > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > pr_debug("backlight_device_register: name=%s\n", name);
> >
> > I don't understand this.
> >
> > Is there some driver which is calling these functions with name=NULL?
> > If so, which one(s)?
>
> No, there is no one.
>
> >
> > If "no" then why don't we declare that "passing name=NULL is a bug" and
> > leave the code as-is?
>
> Do you mean following?
>
> + if (name == NULL)
> + pr_err("passing name=NULL is a bug");
> +
> pr_debug("backlight_device_register: name=%s\n", name);
Nope; I'm suggesting we leave the code alone. If someone passes in
NULL they will get a nice oops and their bug will then get fixed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
