Interesting.  I'll double check the results from ASLTS but I don't recall
seeing any changes.

On 06/01/2015 03:58 PM, Moore, Robert wrote:
> I think we have taken at least one look at this one. We added checks for null pointers, but then the compiler failed our test suite. So, we feel that the problem is a bit more complex. However, it is on our list of things to do.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Devel [mailto:devel-bounces(a)acpica.org] On Behalf Of Al Stone
>> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 1:59 PM
>> To: devel(a)acpica.org
>> Subject: [Devel] [RFC] proposed patch for some segfaults encountered
>>
>> It's not clear to me that this is the correct way to handle a segfault
>> that was reported to me via Fedora.
>>
>> Using the ssdt9.dat file attached, a simple "iasl -d ssdt9.dat" will
>> segfault around calls to AcpiDmPromoteTarget -- and it turns out that the
>> Target pointer being passed into that function was sometimes null but not
>> being checked in the calling function, AcpiDmCheckForSymbolicOpcode.  So,
>> this patch adds in some checks for null pointers and can now get through
>> this particular problem.
>>
>> However, I did not study AcpiDmCheckForSymbolicOpcode long enough to
>> determine if the Target pointer in that function should or should not ever
>> be null.  So, this patch fixes this issue, but it may not be the proper
>> long term solution.
>>
>> --
>> ciao,
>> al
>> -----------------------------------
>> Al Stone
>> Software Engineer
>> Red Hat, Inc.
>> ahs3(a)redhat.com
>> -----------------------------------


-- 
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3(a)redhat.com
-----------------------------------