lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] staging: most: video: fix registration of an empty comp core_component
Date
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 11:46:05 AM CEST Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>
> Currently we have structrues comp (which is empty) and comp_info being
> used to register and deregister the component. This mismatch in naming
> occurred from a previous commit that renamed aim_info to comp. Fix this
> to use consistent component naming in line with most/net, most/sound etc.
>
> This fixes the message two issues, one with a null empty name when
> loading the module:
>
> [ 1485.269515] most_core: registered new core component (null)
>
> and an Oops when removing the module:
>
> [ 1485.277971] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000008
> [ 1485.278648] PGD 0 P4D 0
> [ 1485.279253] Oops: 0002 [#2] SMP PTI
> [ 1485.279847] CPU: 1 PID: 32629 Comm: modprobe Tainted: P D WC OE 4.18.0-8-generic #9
> [ 1485.280442] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015
> [ 1485.281040] RIP: 0010:most_deregister_component+0x3c/0x70 [most_core]
> .. etc
>
> Fixes: 1b10a0316e2d ("staging: most: video: remove aim designators")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/most/video/video.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/video/video.c b/drivers/staging/most/video/video.c
> index cf342eb58e10..ad7e28ab9a4f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/most/video/video.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/most/video/video.c
> @@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ static int comp_disconnect_channel(struct most_interface *iface,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static struct core_component comp_info = {
> +static struct core_component comp = {
> .name = "video",
> .probe_channel = comp_probe_channel,
> .disconnect_channel = comp_disconnect_channel,

Doesn't it make more sense to move that variable defintion where currently the forward declaration is?
This way you can't have 2 variables accidentally. You will need forward declarations for those two functions, but a mismatch here results in a linker error rather than a runtime NULL pointer access

Best regards,
Alexander



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-05 12:08    [W:0.046 / U:0.820 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site