On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 18:05 +0000, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:51:36AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 17:35 +0000, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:23:07AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 17:40 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 17:30:36 +0100 > > > > > > > > > > Move two debug messages so that a null pointer access can not happen > > > > > for the variable "ch" in these functions. > > > > > > > > An actual defect fix! > > > > > > Nope, not at all, this does not "fix" anything. > > > > Well, I believe it does in unusual cases like a > > CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG when this is enabled by an > > odd +p in the dynamic debug control file. > > > > > > Here you could probably cc stable too. > > > > > > Nope, not worth it. > > > > <shrug> > > > > It's pretty unlikely, but it is an actual defect. > > No it is not, those variables will never be set to NULL, so this can > never be triggered. Walk up the call chain. Right you are. Local analysis isn't enough. The code could/should be removed, but it's not a defect. cheers, Joe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
