From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: [patch -next] mv643xx_eth: potential null dereference Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:32:57 -0700 Message-ID: <1279881177.24768.1623.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> References: <20100723101528.GF26313@bicker> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Lennert Buytenhek , "David S. Miller" , Jiri Pirko , Denis Kirjanov , Saeed Bishara , netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Carpenter Return-path: Received: from mail.perches.com ([173.55.12.10]:2064 "EHLO mail.perches.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754489Ab0GWKc7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:32:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100723101528.GF26313@bicker> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 12:15 +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote: > We assume that "pd" can be null on the previous line, and throughout the > function so we should check it here as well. This was introduced by > 9b2c2ff7a1c0 "mv643xx_eth: use sw csum for big packets" > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter > > diff --git a/drivers/net/mv643xx_eth.c b/drivers/net/mv643xx_eth.c > index 2fcdb1e..9166f55 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/mv643xx_eth.c > +++ b/drivers/net/mv643xx_eth.c > @@ -2675,7 +2675,8 @@ static int mv643xx_eth_shared_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > * Detect hardware parameters. > */ > msp->t_clk = (pd != NULL && pd->t_clk != 0) ? pd->t_clk : 133000000; > - msp->tx_csum_limit = pd->tx_csum_limit ? pd->tx_csum_limit : 9 * 1024; > + msp->tx_csum_limit = (pd && pd->tx_csum_limit) ? > + pd->tx_csum_limit : 9 * 1024; It's odd using two different check styles for the same test on consecutive lines. How about using the same style: msp->tx_csum_limit = (pd != NULL && pd->tx_csum_limit) ? pd->tx_csum_limit : 9 * 1024;