On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 at 12:25, Sean Anderson seanga2@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/26/23 01:18, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 at 04:43, Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com <mailto:
seanga2@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 12/25/23 10:39, Maxim Uvarov wrote: > Add additional checks for NULL pointers. > > Signed-off-by: Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uvarov@linaro.org <mailto:maxim.uvarov@linaro.org>>
> --- > drivers/net/sandbox.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/sandbox.c b/drivers/net/sandbox.c > index 13022addb6..d91935e032 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/sandbox.c > +++ b/drivers/net/sandbox.c > @@ -65,6 +65,9 @@ int sandbox_eth_arp_req_to_reply(struct udevice*dev, void *packet,
> struct ethernet_hdr *eth_recv; > struct arp_hdr *arp_recv; > > + if (!priv) > + return -EAGAIN; > + When can priv be NULL? --SeanFunction struct eth_sandbox_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(dev) can return NULL. If you ask why it doesn't return NULL without lwip
patches and can return NULL with lwip patch while there is no clear code dependency..
Then I can not say right now and need additional investigation. But
anyway the return code of dev_dev_priv() has to be checked I think.
If you set priv_auto to a nonzero value, dev_get_priv will always return non-null and does not need to be checked. So this is a NACK from me until you can justify this.
--Sean
Ok. I will remove this patch from v3 patchset and send it separately with a more detailed description.
BR, Maxim.