On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
We still fail the probe in the patch Jingoo Han sent,
anyways if i catch your point correctly is this the lines you wanted?
+ /**
+ * BUG if the name of the backlight device
+ * is a NULL
+ */
+ BUG_ON(!name);
--
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
