Re: pnp_bus_resume(): inconsequent NULL checking

Adrian Bunk
2008-02-21T16:10:04Z

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 08:26:53AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 February 2008 10:47:21 pm Rene Herman wrote:
> > On 20-02-08 17:59, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > I agree with you that we can just delete the dev->protocol tests
> > > completely. So I'd rather see something like this (built but untested):
> > >
> > >
> > > PNP: remove dev->protocol NULL checks
> > >
> > > Every PNP device should have a valid protocol pointer. If it doesn't,
> > > something's wrong and we should oops so we can find and fix the problem.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
> >
> > Ack from a functional standpoint: we are oopsing in pnp_start/stop_dev
> > _anyway_ if the protocol pointer isn't set.
> >
> > Will you coach this upstream? A 2.6.25-rc1 change from me made the coverity
> > checker pick up on it which might be considered enough of an excuse to call
> > it a regression and submit this as a fix...
>
> I'll push it upstream, but a coverity warning seems like a marginal
> excuse for putting it in 2.6.25. Is there any real reason it can't
> wait until 2.6.26?

The main purpose of my mail was to get an answer whether the NULL check
should be removed or whether there's a NULL dereference that could
happen in practice (which would have been a real bug).

A NULL check too much is not a real bug and therefore it can't count as
a regression, so from my side it doesn't matter whether you push it as
"trivial enough" for 2.6.25 or as "not urgent" for 2.6.26.

> > Rene.

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed