On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:36 AM, Andrew Morton wrote
> 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.
I see. I agree with you.
Please, abandon this patch.
Best regards,
Jingoo Han
>
> --
> 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
--
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
