On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 01:11:59PM -0700, Li Zhong wrote: > uart_port_check() will return NULL pointer when state->uart_port is > NULL. Check the return value before dereference it to avoid > null-pointer-dereference error. Here we do not need unlock in the error > handling because the mutex_unlock() is called in callers. > > Signed-off-by: Li Zhong <floridsleeves@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c b/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c > index 12c87cd201a7..760e177166cf 100644 > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c > @@ -194,6 +194,9 @@ static int uart_port_startup(struct tty_struct *tty, struct uart_state *state, > unsigned long page; > int retval = 0; > > + if (!uport) > + return -EIO; > + > if (uport->type == PORT_UNKNOWN) > return 1; > > @@ -498,6 +501,8 @@ static void uart_change_speed(struct tty_struct *tty, struct uart_state *state, > struct ktermios *termios; > int hw_stopped; > > + if (!uport) > + return; > /* > * If we have no tty, termios, or the port does not exist, > * then we can't set the parameters for this port. > @@ -1045,6 +1050,8 @@ static int uart_get_lsr_info(struct tty_struct *tty, > struct uart_port *uport = uart_port_check(state); > unsigned int result; > > + if (!uport) > + return -EIO; > result = uport->ops->tx_empty(uport); > > /* > -- > 2.25.1 > Hi, This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux kernel tree. You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) as indicated below: - This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what needs to be done here to properly describe this. If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received from other developers. thanks, greg k-h's patch email bot
