Can we merge this patch? KASAN will probably complain about this as
well, I think...
regards,
dan carpenter
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 01:43:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Static checkers complain that we are using "s->i" as an offset before
> we check whether it is within bounds. It doesn't matter much but we
> can easily swap the order of the checks to make everyone happy.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c b/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
> index e74fe84d0886..624ff4409c61 100644
> --- a/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
> +++ b/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
> @@ -1063,8 +1063,9 @@ ecryptfs_parse_tag_70_packet(char **filename, size_t *filename_size,
> "rc = [%d]\n", __func__, rc);
> goto out_free_unlock;
> }
> - while (s->decrypted_filename[s->i] != '\0'
> - && s->i < s->block_aligned_filename_size)
> +
> + while (s->i < s->block_aligned_filename_size &&
> + s->decrypted_filename[s->i] != '\0')
> s->i++;
> if (s->i == s->block_aligned_filename_size) {
> printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: Invalid tag 70 packet; could not "
