Hello Ecrypt FS People,
Al Viro has a patch in linux-next and it upsets Smatch:
The patch 72c2d5319200: "file->f_op is never NULL..." from Sep 22,
2013, leads to the following
static checker warning: "fs/ecryptfs/file.c:320 ecryptfs_unlocked_ioctl()
error: potential NULL dereference 'lower_file'."
fs/ecryptfs/file.c
312 static long
313 ecryptfs_unlocked_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
314 {
315 struct file *lower_file = NULL;
316 long rc = -ENOTTY;
317
318 if (ecryptfs_file_to_private(file))
319 lower_file = ecryptfs_file_to_lower(file);
320 if (lower_file->f_op && lower_file->f_op->unlocked_ioctl)
321 rc = lower_file->f_op->unlocked_ioctl(lower_file, cmd, arg);
If there is no file->private_data then "lower_file" is NULL. However,
I think file->private_data is always set to a valid pointer in
ecryptfs_open() so really we should just remove the
"if (ecryptfs_file_to_private(file))" check. Is that right, or am I
missing something.
322 return rc;
323 }
324
325 #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
326 static long
327 ecryptfs_compat_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
328 {
329 struct file *lower_file = NULL;
330 long rc = -ENOIOCTLCMD;
331
332 if (ecryptfs_file_to_private(file))
333 lower_file = ecryptfs_file_to_lower(file);
334 if (lower_file->f_op && lower_file->f_op->compat_ioctl)
335 rc = lower_file->f_op->compat_ioctl(lower_file, cmd, arg);
Same things.
336 return rc;
337 }
338 #endif
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ecryptfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
