From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S937003AbdEXIJ2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 24 May 2017 04:09:28 -0400
Received: from mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com ([67.231.152.168]:38456 "EHLO
        mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933663AbdEXIIu (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 24 May 2017 04:08:50 -0400
Authentication-Results: ppops.net;
        spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 09:09:51 +0100
From: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
CC: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>,
        <patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [mfd] question about potential null pointer dereference
Message-ID: <20170524080951.GO1594@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20170523163341.Horde.9ys90CmTnWtlq_NxAO5TqfN@gator4166.hostgator.com>
 <20170524072258.7qnnnrdodjwc55lk@dell>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170524072258.7qnnnrdodjwc55lk@dell>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0
 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011
 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0
 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1705240038
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > The issue here is that there is a potential NULL pointer dereference at line
> > 37, in case function of_match_device() returns NULL.
> > 
> > Maybe a patch like the following could be applied in order to avoid any
> > chance of a NULL pointer dereference:
> 
> I do not believe it's possible for of_match_device() to return NULL in
> this case.
> 
> However, if you wanted to submit a patch checking for it, it would not
> be rejected.

Personally I would prefer to have a NULL pointer check in there.

Thanks,
Charles