Re: [PATCH] media: malic55: Fix possible ERR_PTR deference in enable_streams

Re: [PATCH] media: malic55: Fix possible ERR_PTR deference in enable_streams

[Markus Elfring]

…
> pointer or an ERR_PTR() on failure …

                error pointer


> Add proper error checking with IS_ERR() before dereferencing the
> pointer. Also set isp->remote_src to NULL on error to maintain
> consistency with other error paths in the function.
…

* See also once more:
  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst?h=v6.19#n34

* Were any source code analysis tools involved here?

* Would a summary phrase like “Prevent error pointer dereference
  in mali_c55_isp_enable_streams()” be more appropriate?


Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH] media: malic55: Fix possible ERR_PTR deference in enable_streams

[Alper Ak]

Hello everyone, look like this patch hasn't been applied. Did I miss
something I needed to do to get it applied? If there is anything I
need to do, please let me know.


Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>, 14 Şub 2026 Cmt, 17:37
tarihinde şunu yazdı:
>
> …
> > pointer or an ERR_PTR() on failure …
>
>                 error pointer
>
>
> > Add proper error checking with IS_ERR() before dereferencing the
> > pointer. Also set isp->remote_src to NULL on error to maintain
> > consistency with other error paths in the function.
> …
>
> * See also once more:
>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst?h=v6.19#n34
>
> * Were any source code analysis tools involved here?
>
> * Would a summary phrase like “Prevent error pointer dereference
>   in mali_c55_isp_enable_streams()” be more appropriate?
>
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>

Re: media: malic55: Fix possible ERR_PTR deference in enable_streams

[Markus Elfring]

> Hello everyone, look like this patch hasn't been applied. Did I miss
> something I needed to do to get it applied? If there is anything I
> need to do, please let me know.

Did anything hinder you to take also my patch review comments better
into account?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH] media: malic55: Fix possible ERR_PTR deference in enable_streams

[Jacopo Mondi]

Hi Alper,

On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 09:31:22AM +0300, Alper Ak wrote:
> Hello everyone, look like this patch hasn't been applied. Did I miss
> something I needed to do to get it applied? If there is anything I
> need to do, please let me know.

No, I think it's good.

The only think I see is my comment

As per the other patch for the CRU, it might be nice to attribute
credit to the static analysis tool you have used.

which makes me think there was a discussion on another patch about the
tool.

If you wish to resend to add credit, you're welcome to do so.

Otherwise, patches are collected in the media tree before the current
-rc6 (usually) so seat back and relax it might still take a while.

>
>
> Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>, 14 Şub 2026 Cmt, 17:37
> tarihinde şunu yazdı:
> >
> > …
> > > pointer or an ERR_PTR() on failure …
> >
> >                 error pointer
> >
> >
> > > Add proper error checking with IS_ERR() before dereferencing the
> > > pointer. Also set isp->remote_src to NULL on error to maintain
> > > consistency with other error paths in the function.
> > …
> >
> > * See also once more:
> >   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst?h=v6.19#n34
> >
> > * Were any source code analysis tools involved here?
> >
> > * Would a summary phrase like “Prevent error pointer dereference
> >   in mali_c55_isp_enable_streams()” be more appropriate?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Markus
> >

Re: media: malic55: Fix possible ERR_PTR deference in enable_streams

[Markus Elfring]

>> Hello everyone, look like this patch hasn't been applied. Did I miss
>> something I needed to do to get it applied? If there is anything I
>> need to do, please let me know.
> 
> No, I think it's good.

Does such feedback indicate that you would tolerate typos here?


> The only think I see is my comment
> 
> As per the other patch for the CRU, it might be nice to attribute
> credit to the static analysis tool you have used.
> 
> which makes me think there was a discussion on another patch about the tool.

Will such patch review concerns be reconsidered any more?

Regards,
Markus