On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 08:54:46AM -0400, Russell, Kent wrote: > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > > It does indeed short-circuit on || (If the left side of an || statement is > not 0, it doesn't evaluate the right side and returns true). So we can ignore > this patch, since checking for each individual field on the 2nd term is > probably overkill. We were still investigating what got passed in and why it > wasn't valid, so I'll drop this for now. Thanks Lijo!
Right, the "||" will short-circuit, but not the "&&". ... > > + if (!m) > > + return NOTIFY_DONE; > > + > > /* > > * If the error was generated in UMC_V2, which belongs to GPU UMCs, > > * and error occurred in DramECC (Extended error code = 0) then only > > * process the error, else bail out. > > */ > > - if (!m || !((smca_get_bank_type(m->extcpu, m->bank) == SMCA_UMC_V2) && > > + if (!((smca_get_bank_type(m->extcpu, m->bank) == SMCA_UMC_V2) && > > (XEC(m->status, 0x3f) == 0x0))) If m is NULL, then we get (!m || "Don't care") = true. We avoid the second operand. But then we have (true && "Something with 'm->' in it"). The second operand in the && needs to be checked, and this will cause a NULL pointer dereference if m is NULL. What do you guys think? Thanks, Yazen
