Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] net: qrtr: fix null pointer dereference in qrtr_ns_remove | From | Qinglang Miao <> | Date | Wed, 6 Jan 2021 14:06:48 +0800 |
| |
Hi Markus,
I'd like to take some of your advice in this patch, but I noticed that this one has been applied.
Some of your advice would be considered kindly on my future work.
Thanks.
在 2021/1/5 21:14, Markus Elfring 写道: >> A null-ptr-deref bug is reported by Hulk Robot like this: > > Can it be clearer to use the term “null pointer dereference” for the final commit message? This advice is too detailed for 'null-ptr-deref' is known as a general phrase like 'use-after-free' for kernel developer, I think.> > >> -------------- > > I suggest to choose an other character for drawing such a text line. It's an acceptable advice, thanks. > > >> Fix it by making … > > Would you like to replace this wording by the tag “Fixes”? Sorry, I didn't get your words.
'Fix it by' follows the solution 'Fixes' follows the commit which brought the problem.
In fact, I do considered using 'Fixes' on this one, but it's hard to tell which specific commit brought this null pointer dereference. > > Will an other imperative wording variant be helpful for this change description? > > > … >> +++ b/net/qrtr/qrtr.c >> @@ -1287,13 +1287,19 @@ static int __init qrtr_proto_init(void) > … >> +err_sock: >> + sock_unregister(qrtr_family.family); >> +err_proto: >> + proto_unregister(&qrtr_proto); >> return rc; >> } > > Would it be clearer to use the labels “unregister_sock” and “unregister_proto”? In fact, The reason I use 'err_sock' rather than 'unregister_sock' is to keep same in 'net/qrtr/ns.c'.
I agree with you that “unregister_sock” is better in normal case. > > Regards, > Markus > . >
| |