On 10/10/19 10:31 PM, Yizhuo Zhai wrote:
> Hi Eric:
>
> My apologies for bothering, we got those report via static analysis
> and haven't got a good method to verify the path to trigger them.
> Therefore I sent those email to you maintainers first since you
> know much better about the
Hi Eric:
My apologies for bothering, we got those report via static analysis
and haven't got a good method to verify the path to trigger them.
Therefore I sent those email to you maintainers first since you
know much better about the details. Sorry again for your time and
I take your suggestions.
On 10/9/19 10:37 PM, Yizhuo Zhai wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> drivers/spi/spi.c:
>
> The function to_spi_device() could return NULL, but some callers
> in this file does not check the return value while directly dereference
> it, which seems potentially unsafe.
>
> Such callers include
Hi All:
drivers/spi/spi.c:
The function to_spi_device() could return NULL, but some callers
in this file does not check the return value while directly dereference
it, which seems potentially unsafe.
Such callers include spidev_release(), spi_dev_check(),
driver_override_store(), etc.
--
4 matches
Mail list logo
