On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 10:26:00AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> Calling calloc() for 0 members does not make any sense.
> Setting ch_priv->busy_desc = NULL for ch_priv->desc_cnt > 0 is equally
> unreasonable.
>
> The current code will lead to a NULL dereference in bcm6348_iudma_enable().
>
On 12/27/20 11:18 AM, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote:
Hello Heinrich,
This is not swapped.
busy_desc is only used in RX. Please, check the rest of the driver:
https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/drivers/dma/bcm6348-iudma.c
Regards,
Álvaro.
Thanks for reviewing. Why is calloc called wit
Hello Heinrich,
This is not swapped.
busy_desc is only used in RX. Please, check the rest of the driver:
https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/drivers/dma/bcm6348-iudma.c
Regards,
Álvaro.
El 27/12/2020 a las 10:26, Heinrich Schuchardt escribió:
Calling calloc() for 0 members does not ma
Calling calloc() for 0 members does not make any sense.
Setting ch_priv->busy_desc = NULL for ch_priv->desc_cnt > 0 is equally
unreasonable.
The current code will lead to a NULL dereference in bcm6348_iudma_enable().
The assignments for ch_priv->busy_desc are obviously swapped.
Signed-off-by: He
4 matches
Mail list logo