On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 09:33:32AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:17:14AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
From: Denis Efremov efremov@linux.com
commit f170d44bc4ec2feae5f6206980e7ae7fbf0432a0 upstream.
The id pointer can be NULL in rsi_probe(). It is checked everywhere except for the else branch in the idProduct condition. The patch adds NULL check before the id dereference in the rsi_dbg() call.
Fixes: 54fdb318c111 ("rsi: add new device model for 9116") Cc: Amitkumar Karwar amitkarwar@gmail.com Cc: Siva Rebbagondla siva8118@gmail.com Cc: Kalle Valo kvalo@codeaurora.org Signed-off-by: Denis Efremov efremov@linux.com Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo kvalo@codeaurora.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
This commit is bogus and was reverted shortly after it was applied in order to prevent autosel from picking it up for stable (reverted by c5dcf8f0e850 ("Revert "rsi: fix potential null dereference in rsi_probe()"")).
The revert has now been picked up by Sasha, but shouldn't an explicit revert in the same pull-request prevent a bad patch from being backported in the first place? Seems like something that could be scripted. But perhaps the net-stable oddities come into play here.
This was my fault, I picked it up, and didn't run a "has this patch been reverted" type search on them. I'll add that to my workflow, sorry.
greg k-h