Re: [PATCH] serial: core: Fix a NULL pointer dereference in uart_parse_earlycon()
Greg KH <[email protected]> Thu, 6 Aug 2026 08:16:54 +0200
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-serial,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <2026080638-waged-tactical-005d@gregkh> |
On Thu, Aug 06, 2026 at 02:10:11PM +0800, Xiaochun Li wrote:
> console=uart and console=pl011 can reach the preferred console matching
> path without an options field when a comma is absent from the command
> line. In that case uart_parse_earlycon() receives a NULL pointer and
> immediately passes it to strncmp(), which triggers a NULL pointer
> dereference during console matching.
>
> Address this by returning -EINVAL when the options pointer is missing,
> ensuring incomplete console arguments are cleanly rejected while
> preserving the behavior of all valid earlycon-style command lines.
>
> Fixes: 73abaf87f01b ("serial: earlycon: Refactor parse_options into serial core")
> Signed-off-by: Xiaochun Li <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c b/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
> index a530ad372b43..02e770bf8bf6 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
> @@ -2084,7 +2084,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(uart_console_write);
>
> /**
> * uart_parse_earlycon - Parse earlycon options
> - * @p: ptr to 2nd field (ie., just beyond '<name>,')
> + * @p: ptr to 2nd field (ie., just beyond '<name>,'); %NULL if
> + * no console options were supplied
> * @iotype: ptr for decoded iotype (out)
> * @addr: ptr for decoded mapbase/iobase (out)
> * @options: ptr for <options> field; %NULL if not present (out)
> @@ -2104,6 +2105,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(uart_console_write);
> int uart_parse_earlycon(char *p, enum uart_iotype *iotype,
> resource_size_t *addr, char **options)
> {
> + if (!p)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> if (strncmp(p, "mmio,", 5) == 0) {
> *iotype = UPIO_MEM;
> p += 5;
> --
> 2.52.0
>
>
How was this tested?