On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 09:33:32AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:17:14AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > From: Denis Efremov <efremov@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > commit f170d44bc4ec2feae5f6206980e7ae7fbf0432a0 upstream.
> >
> > The id pointer can be NULL in rsi_probe(). It is checked everywhere except
> > for the else branch in the idProduct condition. The patch adds NULL check
> > before the id dereference in the rsi_dbg() call.
> >
> > Fixes: 54fdb318c111 ("rsi: add new device model for 9116")
> > Cc: Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Siva Rebbagondla <siva8118@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Denis Efremov <efremov@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This commit is bogus and was reverted shortly after it was applied in
> order to prevent autosel from picking it up for stable (reverted by
> c5dcf8f0e850 ("Revert "rsi: fix potential null dereference in
> rsi_probe()"")).
>
> The revert has now been picked up by Sasha, but shouldn't an
> explicit revert in the same pull-request prevent a bad patch from being
> backported in the first place? Seems like something that could be
> scripted. But perhaps the net-stable oddities come into play here.
This was my fault, I picked it up, and didn't run a "has this patch been
reverted" type search on them. I'll add that to my workflow, sorry.
greg k-h
