Andrew Morton<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:21:32 +0800 Ma Ke <make24@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > pinmux_generic_get_function() can return NULL and the pointer 'function' > > was dereferenced without checking against NULL. Add checking of pointer > > 'function' in pcs_get_function(). > > > > Found by code review. > > > > ... > > > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > > @@ -345,6 +345,8 @@ static int pcs_get_function(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned pin, > > return -ENOTSUPP; > > fselector = setting->func; > > function = pinmux_generic_get_function(pctldev, fselector); > > + if (!function) > > + return -EINVAL; > > *func = function->data; > > if (!(*func)) { > > dev_err(pcs->dev, "%s could not find function%i\n", > > Maybe. Or maybe pinmux_generic_get_function() must always return a > valid pointer, in which case > > BUG_ON(!function); > > is an appropriate thing. But a null-pointer deref gives us the same > info, so no change is needed. > > btw, pinmux_generic_get_function() is funny: > > if (!function) > return NULL; > > return function; Thank you for your response to the vulnerability I submitted. Yes, we believe there is a similar issue. As described in [1], pinmux_generic_get_function() could return as NULL and lead to a d ereferencing problem, and a similar issue exists in this code. It is better to add checking of pointer 'function' in pcs_get_function(). The discovery of this problem was confirmed through manual review of the code and compilation testing. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/CACRpkdYwBNjGzODYqvz+oScsO3u=R0dXMkP4UfqmosDugPFWRA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/ -- Regards, Ma Ke