Hi Eric: My apologies for bothering, we got those report via static analysis and haven't got a good method to verify the path to trigger them. Therefore I sent those email to you maintainers first since you know much better about the details. Sorry again for your time and I take your suggestions. On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:48 PM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 10/9/19 10:37 PM, Yizhuo Zhai wrote: > > Hi All: > > > > drivers/spi/spi.c: > > > > The function to_spi_device() could return NULL, but some callers > > in this file does not check the return value while directly dereference > > it, which seems potentially unsafe. > > > > Such callers include spidev_release(), spi_dev_check(), > > driver_override_store(), etc. > > > > > > > Many of your reports are completely bogus. > > I suggest you spend more time before sending such emails to very large audience > and risk being ignored at some point. > > Thanks. -- Kind Regards, Yizhuo Zhai Computer Science, Graduate Student University of California, Riverside