Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Jonathan Woithe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/12] drivers/platform/x86: Correct redundant test | Date | Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:20:21 +0930 (CST) |
| |
Hi guys
> Julia Lawall wrote: > > [...] > > --- > > drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c | 3 --- > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > > index 218b9a1..5306901 100644 > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > > @@ -745,9 +745,6 @@ static int acpi_fujitsu_remove(struct acpi_device *device, int type) > > > > fujitsu = acpi_driver_data(device); > > > > - if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device)) > > - return -EINVAL; > > - > > Shouldn't this still do a: > > if (!fujitsu) > return -EINVAL; > > to avoid dereferencing a NULL pointer below?
Hmm, yes it should. Well spotted. And I'm not certain how the duplicate test on "device" got in there in the first place. I suspect it came about due to some structural changes made a few versions ago and I failed to notice that the second check became redundant.
So, combining this with the above patch we should instead do
Signed-off-by: jwoithe@physics.adelaide.edu.au <Jonathan Woithe>
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c 2009-06-12 19:51:45.333234000 +0930 +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c 2009-07-29 10:14:30.610249941 +0930 @@ -745,7 +745,7 @@ static int acpi_fujitsu_remove(struct ac fujitsu = acpi_driver_data(device); - if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device)) + if (!fujitsu) return -EINVAL; fujitsu->acpi_handle = NULL; Regards jonathan
| |