Hello Sridhar Samudrala,
The patch cfc80d9a1163: "net: Introduce net_failover driver" from May
24, 2018, leads to the following static checker warning:
drivers/net/net_failover.c:65 net_failover_open()
error: we previously assumed 'primary_dev' could be null (see line 43)
drivers/net/net_failover.c
36 static int net_failover_open(struct net_device *dev)
37 {
38 struct net_failover_info *nfo_info = netdev_priv(dev);
39 struct net_device *primary_dev, *standby_dev;
40 int err;
41
42 primary_dev = rtnl_dereference(nfo_info->primary_dev);
43 if (primary_dev) {
44 err = dev_open(primary_dev);
45 if (err)
46 goto err_primary_open;
47 }
48
49 standby_dev = rtnl_dereference(nfo_info->standby_dev);
50 if (standby_dev) {
51 err = dev_open(standby_dev);
52 if (err)
53 goto err_standby_open;
54 }
55
56 if ((primary_dev && net_failover_xmit_ready(primary_dev)) ||
57 (standby_dev && net_failover_xmit_ready(standby_dev))) {
58 netif_carrier_on(dev);
59 netif_tx_wake_all_queues(dev);
60 }
61
62 return 0;
63
64 err_standby_open:
65 dev_close(primary_dev);
We need a NULL check here:
if (primary_dev)
dev_close(primary_dev);
66 err_primary_open:
67 netif_tx_disable(dev);
Is this really correct? It feel like it's either wrong or a slightly
ugly layering violation. We didn't call netif_tx_enable in this
function.
68 return err;
69 }
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
