On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 11:16:50 +0200, "Lifshits, Vitaly" wrote:
> On 2/5/2026 10:50 AM, Kohei Enju wrote:
> > On devices without NVM, hw->nvm.ops.validate is set to NULL, therefore
> > functions that perform EEPROM-related operations such as
> > igc_ethtool_set_eeprom() and igc_probe() check for NVM presence in
> > advance. However igc_eeprom_test() unconditionally calls
> > hw->nvm.ops.validate(), potentially causing a null pointer dereference.
> >
> > NVM-less devices may not be common but possible, so add NULL check
> > before calling hw->nvm.ops.validate().
> >
> > Fixes: f026d8ca2904 ("igc: add support to eeprom, registers and link
> > self-tests")
> > Signed-off-by: Kohei Enju <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_diag.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_diag.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_diag.c
> > index a43d7244ee70..973d26a5a6c9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_diag.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_diag.c
> > @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ bool igc_eeprom_test(struct igc_adapter *adapter, u64
> > *data)
> >
> > *data = 0;
> >
> > - if (hw->nvm.ops.validate(hw) != IGC_SUCCESS) {
> > + if (hw->nvm.ops.validate && hw->nvm.ops.validate(hw) != IGC_SUCCESS) {
> > *data = 1;
> > return false;
> > }
>
>
> Hi Kohei,
>
> Thank you for your patch.
>
> Since there are no NVM-less devices I suggest removing the flash-less
> code entirely from the init flow.
Oh, I see there're no NVM-less devices. Then removing sounds good to me.
Could you clarify what you mean by "init flow"? Do you mean removing
only the flash-less branch in igc_init_nvm_params_i225(), or removing
all flash-less related code including igc_get_flash_presence_i225() and
its callers?
After clarification, I'd love to work on it. Thank you for taking a
look!
