On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 05:25:33PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> When assign new PCI platform PM operations check for all mandatory fields to
>> prevent NULL pointer dereference.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/pci.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>> index c8b4dbd..badbddc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>> @@ -530,8 +530,8 @@ static const struct pci_platform_pm_ops *pci_platform_pm;
>>
>> int pci_set_platform_pm(const struct pci_platform_pm_ops *ops)
>> {
>> - if (!ops->is_manageable || !ops->set_state || !ops->choose_state
>> - || !ops->sleep_wake)
>> + if (!ops->is_manageable || !ops->set_state || !ops->choose_state ||
>> + !ops->sleep_wake || !ops->run_wake || !ops->need_resume)
>> return -EINVAL;
>
> This looks OK to me. platform_pci_run_wake() and
> platform_pci_need_resume() assume that if pci_platform_pm is set,
> pci_platform_pm->run_wake and pci_platform_pm->need_resume are valid
> function pointers. This is analogous to what we already do for
> ops->is_manageable, etc.
>
> Rafael, do you want to take this or should I?
>
>> pci_platform_pm = ops;
>> return 0;
>> --
I can take it.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
