Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        "Joe Perches" <joe@perches.com>,
        "Zhenyu Wang" <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>,
        "Zhi Wang" <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>,
        "Jani Nikula" <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        "Joonas Lahtinen" <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        "Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        "David Airlie" <airlied@linux.ie>,
        intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
From:   Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <a0309d42-a2ab-9270-b486-2325522256b6@canonical.com>
Cc:     kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20180321190653.3829-1-colin.king@canonical.com>
 <1521659361.7999.27.camel@perches.com>
 <a0309d42-a2ab-9270-b486-2325522256b6@canonical.com>
Message-ID: <152166020495.4865.8856861326837841719@mail.alporthouse.com>
User-Agent: alot/0.3.6
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: don't dereference 'workload' before null checking
 it
Date:   Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:23:24 +0000
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Colin Ian King (2018-03-21 19:18:28)
> On 21/03/18 19:09, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 19:06 +0000, Colin King wrote:
> >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> >>
> >> The pointer workload is dereferenced before it is null checked, hence
> >> there is a potential for a null pointer dereference on workload. Fix
> >> this by only dereferencing workload after it is null checked.
> >>
> >> Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1466017 ("Dereference before null check")
> > 
> > Maybe true, but is it possible for workload to be null?
> > Maybe the null test should be removed instead.
> 
> From what I understand from the static analysis, there may be a
> potential for workload to be null, I couldn't rule it out so I went with
> the more paranoid stance of keeping the null check in.

Not sr_oa_regs() problem if workload is NULL, that's the callers. I
reviewed the identical patch yesterday, and we ended up with removing
the NULL checks, just keeping the workload->id != RCS.
-Chris