Re: sony-laptop: fix early NULL pointer dereference

[Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>]

On 4/5/11, Thiago Farina <tfransosi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Mattia Dongili <malattia@linux.it> wrote:
>> Author: Mattia Dongili <malattia@linux.it>
>> Date:   Fri Apr 1 10:01:41 2011 +0900
>>
> I think most of the patches doesn't include these above lines nor the
> subject line in the description.

Just ignore those lines.  It's a git thing.

> Also when submitting a patch to the
> list, please don't forget to put [PATCH] on the subject line.
>

Yeah.  [patch v2].  But it's too late to fix that so don't worry about it.

> git format-patch should output the right format.
>
>>    sony-laptop: fix early NULL pointer dereference
>>
>>    The SNC acpi driver could get early notifications before it fully
>>    initializes and that could lead to dereferencing the sony_nc_handles
>>    structure pointer that is still NULL at that stage.
>>    Make sure we return early from the handle lookup function in these
>>    cases.
>>
>>    Signed-off-by: Mattia Dongili <malattia@linux.it>
>> ---
>>
>> Hi Matthew,
>> if it's not too late, can you pick this one up instead of the previous
>> one (89ec2feafaedd759e53346d641f60863a14cfb9e)?
>> If it's too late I'll try and do a round of return value fixes later.

Don't worry about it.  Probably the real fix is to make checkpatch.pl
complain if you return -1 instead of a proper error code.

>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/sony-laptop.c
>> b/drivers/platform/x86/sony-laptop.c
>> index b2ce172..de79c18 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/sony-laptop.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/sony-laptop.c
>> @@ -810,6 +810,11 @@ static int sony_nc_handles_cleanup(struct
>> platform_device *pd)
>>  static int sony_find_snc_handle(int handle)
>>  {
>>        int i;
>> +
>> +       /* not initialized yet, return early */
> This comment is useless, it is just repeating what the codes does ;) I
> think you can just remove it.

Whatever...  Let's just merge this fix and let's move on.

regards,
dan carpenter

>
>> +       if (!handles)
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>> +
>>        for (i = 0; i < 0x10; i++) {
>>                if (handles->cap[i] == handle) {
>>                        dprintk("found handle 0x%.4x (offset: 0x%.2x)\n",