Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 4 Feb 2020 10:00:16 +0000 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5.4 117/203] rsi: fix potential null dereference in rsi_probe() |
| |
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
|  |