[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18eb549b-d2f6-9352-582e-aec484dc95c1@canonical.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 14:59:22 +0100
From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To: Matteo Croce <mcroce@...rosoft.com>,
Sven Auhagen <sven.auhagen@...eatech.de>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: re: mvpp2: XDP TX support
Hi,
Static analysis with Coverity has found a potential issue in the
following commit:
commit c2d6fe6163de80d7f7cf400ee351f56d6cdb7a5a
Author: Matteo Croce <mcroce@...rosoft.com>
Date: Thu Jul 2 16:12:43 2020 +0200
mvpp2: XDP TX support
In source drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c in function
mvpp2_check_pagepool_dma, analysis is as follows:
4486 if (!priv->percpu_pools)
4487 return err;
4488
CID (#1 of 1): Array compared against 0 (NO_EFFECT)
array_null: Comparing an array to null is not useful: priv->page_pool,
since the test will always evaluate as true.
Was priv->page_pool formerly declared as a pointer?
4489 if (!priv->page_pool)
4490 return -ENOMEM;
4491
page_pool is declared as:
struct page_pool *page_pool[MVPP2_PORT_MAX_RXQ];
..it is an array and hence cannot be null, so the null check is
redundant. Later on there is a reference of priv->page_pool[0], so was
the check meant to be:
if (!priv->page_pool[0])
Colin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists