On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 at 14:22, Joshua Ashton wrote:
> Maybe that wasn't you or whatever, but your last patch that did this got
> some CVE assigned to it that didn't really make any sense, given this is
> just a null deref that'd end up as an oops?
>
> It can only happen if the kzalloc in drm_mode_
Maybe that wasn't you or whatever, but your last patch that did this got
some CVE assigned to it that didn't really make any sense, given this is
just a null deref that'd end up as an oops?
It can only happen if the kzalloc in drm_mode_create fails.
I imagine that the `continue` is not the bes
Are you planning on submitting a bogus CVE for this patch too?
- Joshie 🐸✨
On June 22, 2024 9:22:19 AM GMT+01:00, Ma Ke wrote:
>In amdgpu_connector_add_common_modes(), the return value of drm_cvt_mode()
>is assigned to mode, which will lead to a NULL pointer dereference on
>failure of drm_cvt_mo
In amdgpu_connector_add_common_modes(), the return value of drm_cvt_mode()
is assigned to mode, which will lead to a NULL pointer dereference on
failure of drm_cvt_mode(). Add a check to avoid npd.
Signed-off-by: Ma Ke
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_connectors.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2
> In amdgpu_connector_add_common_modes(), the return value of drm_cvt_mode()
> is assigned to mode, which will lead to a NULL pointer dereference on
> failure of drm_cvt_mode(). Add a check to avoid npd.
Can a wording approach (like the following) be a better change description?
A null pointer
