Re: [PATCH v2] intel_th: core: fix null pointer dereference in intel_th_irq

Re: [PATCH v2] intel_th: core: fix null pointer dereference in intel_th_irq

[Markus Elfring]

> In certain cases intel_th_irq can reference a null entry in
> the th->thdev array.  This results in the splat shown below.
> The problem is that intel_th_output_enable() can modify the
> thdev[] array at the same time intel_th_irq is referencing
> the same array.  This can be fixed by disabling interrupts
> during the call to intel_th_output_enable().

1. Would another imperative wording become helpful for an improved change description?
   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.18-rc6#n94

2. You may occasionally put more than 60 characters into text lines
   of such a change description.

3. Would a summary phrase like “Prevent null pointer dereference
   in intel_th_output_enable()” be more appropriate?


Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH v2] intel_th: core: fix null pointer dereference in intel_th_irq

[David Arcari]

Hi,

On 11/19/25 7:55 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> In certain cases intel_th_irq can reference a null entry in
>> the th->thdev array.  This results in the splat shown below.
>> The problem is that intel_th_output_enable() can modify the
>> thdev[] array at the same time intel_th_irq is referencing
>> the same array.  This can be fixed by disabling interrupts
>> during the call to intel_th_output_enable().
> 
> 1. Would another imperative wording become helpful for an improved change description?
>     https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.18-rc6#n94

I feel like the description explains the problem well. However, do you 
have alternate wording you would like to suggest?

> 
> 2. You may occasionally put more than 60 characters into text lines
>     of such a change description.
I can redo the body of the commit and submit a v3 if the maintainer is 
interested in applying a patch of this nature.

> 
> 3. Would a summary phrase like “Prevent null pointer dereference
>     in intel_th_output_enable()” be more appropriate?
The null pointer deference occurs in intel_th_irq. So I could change it 
to "Prevent null pointer dererference in intel_th_irq".

Before I do anything else with this patch I'd like to hear back from 
Alexander. There's no reason to refactor a patch that won't be committed.

Thanks,
-DA

> 
> 
> Regards,
> Markus
> 

Re: [v2] intel_th: core: fix null pointer dereference in intel_th_irq

[Markus Elfring]

…>>> the same array.  This can be fixed by disabling interrupts
>>> during the call to intel_th_output_enable().
>>
>> 1. Would another imperative wording become helpful for an improved change description?
>>     https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.18-rc6#n94
> 
> I feel like the description explains the problem well.

Perhaps?


> However, do you have alternate wording you would like to suggest?

Under which circumstances would you get into the mood to convert the wording approach
“can be fixed by” into an imperative one?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [v2] intel_th: core: fix null pointer dereference in intel_th_irq

[David Arcari]

On 11/20/25 8:07 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> …>>> the same array.  This can be fixed by disabling interrupts
>>>> during the call to intel_th_output_enable().
>>>
>>> 1. Would another imperative wording become helpful for an improved change description?
>>>      https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.18-rc6#n94
>>
>> I feel like the description explains the problem well.
> 
> Perhaps?
> 
> 
>> However, do you have alternate wording you would like to suggest?
> 
> Under which circumstances would you get into the mood to convert the wording approach
> “can be fixed by” into an imperative one?

I see. I will make that change if a v3 is in order. Naturally, I'd like 
to hear back from Alexander before putting more effort into this.

Best,
-DA

> 
> Regards,
> Markus
> 

Re: [v2] intel_th: core: fix null pointer dereference in intel_th_irq

[Alexander Shishkin]

David Arcari <darcari@redhat.com> writes:

> On 11/20/25 8:07 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> …>>> the same array.  This can be fixed by disabling interrupts
>>>>> during the call to intel_th_output_enable().
>>>>
>>>> 1. Would another imperative wording become helpful for an improved change description?
>>>>      https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.18-rc6#n94
>>>
>>> I feel like the description explains the problem well.
>> 
>> Perhaps?
>> 
>> 
>>> However, do you have alternate wording you would like to suggest?
>> 
>> Under which circumstances would you get into the mood to convert the wording approach
>> “can be fixed by” into an imperative one?
>
> I see. I will make that change if a v3 is in order. Naturally, I'd like 
> to hear back from Alexander before putting more effort into this.

Sorry for the delay, I found a working intel_th, so I'm looking into it,
I'll get back to you shortly.

Thanks,
--
Alex