lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Should snd_card_free() check for null pointer?
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:41:38 +0100,
Jerome Marchand wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Takashi Iwai" <tiwai@suse.de>
> > To: "Jerome Marchand" <jmarchan@redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Jaroslav Kysela" <perex@perex.cz>, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 10:56:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: Should snd_card_free() check for null pointer?
> >
> > On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 15:30:16 +0100,
> > Jerome Marchand wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Before commit f24640648186b (ALSA: Use standard device refcount for card
> > > accounting), snd_card_free() would return -EINVAL on a null pointer. Now
> > > it ends up in a null pointer dereference. There is at least one driver
> > > that can call snd_card_free() with null argument: saa7134_alsa. It can
> > > easily be triggered by just inserting and removing the module (no need
> > > to have the hardware).
> > > I don't think that is a rule, but it seems that the standard behavior of
> > > *_free() functions is to check for null pointer. What do you think?
> >
> > Well, I have a mixed feeling about this. Allowing NULL sometimes
> > makes the code easier. OTOH, caling snd_card_free() with NULL is
> > really an unexpected situation, and if a driver does it, most likely
> > it does something weird.
> >
> > So, at this moment, I would fix the caller side. But, it's not a
> > final call, just my gut feeling.
>
> I have no strong opinion either way and I have a patch that fixes saa7134
> driver ready to be sent if that is your preference.

Go ahead, let's fix saa7134 side for now.


thanks,

Takashi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-10 10:21    [W:0.035 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site