Thank you so much for the feedback. I appreciate your time and effort
in reviewing and providing feedback.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 00:51, Eric Dumazet [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 8:05 PM Suchit K [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Eric,
Thanks for the feedback! I'm new to kernel development and still
finding my way around.
I wasn't working from a syzbot report on this one; I was just
exploring the code and felt there is no parameter validation. I went
ahead and made this change based on that impression. I realized my
changelog should have been more generic. Sorry about that. Also since
it's not based on a syzbot report, is it good to have this change?
Your insights and suggestions would be most welcome. I will make the
required changes accordingly.
Thanks.

I think these checks are not necessary.

1) The caller (dev_addr_mod) provides non NULL pointers,
    there is no point adding tests, because if one of them was NULL,
    a crash would occur before hitting this function.

2) Your patch would silently hide a real issue if for some reason
dev->addr_len was too big.