-----Original Message----- From: Zheng, Lv Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 5:59 PM To: Sudip Mukherjee; Moore, Robert Cc: Wysocki, Rafael J; Len Brown; devel(a)acpica.org Subject: RE: [PATCH] ACPICA: fix possible NULL dereference If it is intentional, can we put something like assert(), BUG_ON() there so that the checker can always be coded but not compiled when the binary is released? Thanks -Lv > From: Sudip Mukherjee [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 2:06 PM > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 07:06:02PM +0000, Moore, Robert wrote: > > One of the things we always have to think about and look at is that > > often, things like this are *guaranteed" to be valid simply by > virtue of the fact that the code has gotten as far as it has. > > > > So, rather than litter the code with NULL checks for every single access, we know up front that the object is valid. > > > > This isn't always true and there are some valid situations, but we would appreciate it if you help track this down. > I tried but looks like acpi is very tough to understand. The only > argument I can give in favor of my patch is that in all the places > this function acpi_ns_get_secondary_object() has been used the return > has been checked, only the three calls in this file > acpi/acpica/dsargs.c has not checked the return. Like you said it > might be intentional also to not check the return only in this file. > > regards > sudip