Re: [PATCH] fs: lockd: avoid possible wrong NULL parameter

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Su Hui <suhui@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: lockd: avoid possible wrong NULL parameter
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 12:10:46 +0300
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx>, chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx, jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx, neilb@xxxxxxx, kolga@xxxxxxxxxx, Dai.Ngo@xxxxxxxxxx, tom@xxxxxxxxxx, trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, anna@xxxxxxxxxx, nathan@xxxxxxxxxx, trix@xxxxxxxxxx, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, llvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <18edc2c7-2fb0-493b-9a9f-549acce4e87a@nfschina.com>
References: <CAKwvOdnRwmxGuEidZ=OWxSX60D6ry0Rb__DjSayga6um35Jsrg@mail.gmail.com> <18edc2c7-2fb0-493b-9a9f-549acce4e87a@nfschina.com>

On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 12:16:40PM +0800, Su Hui wrote:
> Should I send a separate patch for this bug and add you as Reported-by ?

I feel like neither of us know if we should add a check to the
intializer or remove the check from dprintk.  If you know the answer,
than absolutely, please send a patch.

regards,
dan carpenter

References:
- Re: [PATCH] fs: lockd: avoid possible wrong NULL parameter
  - From: Nick Desaulniers
- Re: [PATCH] fs: lockd: avoid possible wrong NULL parameter
  - From: Su Hui

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] fs: lockd: avoid possible wrong NULL parameter
Next by Date: Re: [bug report] lockdep/selftests: Use SBRM APIs for wait context tests
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] fs: lockd: avoid possible wrong NULL parameter
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] fs: lockd: avoid possible wrong NULL parameter
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Development] [Kernel Announce] [Kernel Newbies] [Linux Networking Development] [Share Photos] [IDE] [Security] [Git] [Netfilter] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Device Mapper]

Powered by Linux