Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <10cdb7dc-c210-8439-dacc-4338d3070f7f@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Sun, 27 Mar 2022 07:22:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] device: fix missing check on list iterator
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Xiaomeng Tong <xiam0nd.tong@gmail.com>
Cc:     airlied@linux.ie, bskeggs@redhat.com, daniel@ffwll.ch,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kherbst@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lyude@redhat.com,
        nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
References: <80429172-37c6-c9ce-4df7-259bb90338a8@roeck-us.net>
 <20220327065950.7886-1-xiam0nd.tong@gmail.com>
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
In-Reply-To: <20220327065950.7886-1-xiam0nd.tong@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/26/22 23:59, Xiaomeng Tong wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 22:38:05 -0700, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>> @@ -103,11 +103,16 @@ nvkm_control_mthd_pstate_attr(struct nvkm_control *ctrl, void *data, u32 size)
>>>    		return -EINVAL;
>>>    
>>>    	if (args->v0.state != NVIF_CONTROL_PSTATE_ATTR_V0_STATE_CURRENT) {
>>> -		list_for_each_entry(pstate, &clk->states, head) {
>>> -			if (i++ == args->v0.state)
>>> +		list_for_each_entry(iter, &clk->states, head) {
>>> +			if (i++ == args->v0.state) {
>>> +				pstate = iter;
>>
>> Is iter and the assignment really necessary ? Unless I am missing something,
>> list_for_each_entry() always assigns pos (pstate/iter), even if the list is
>> empty. If nothing is found, pstate would be NULL at the end, so
> 
> the pstate will not be NULL at the end! so the assignment is necessary!
> #define list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member)                          \
>      for (pos = __container_of((head)->next, pos, member);               \
>           &pos->member != (head);                                        \
>           pos = __container_of(pos->member.next, pos, member))
> 


Uuh, yes, you are correct. Sorry for the noise.

Guenter