Okay, everyone agrees with Dan..? I have made a new patch, which does not check if hnode is NULL. Best regards Rickard Strandqvist 2014-05-16 0:43 GMT+02:00 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:53:53PM +0200, Rickard Strandqvist wrote: >> There is otherwise a risk of a possible null pointer dereference. >> > > None of the callers pass in a NULL hnode so there isn't actually a NULL > dereference here. You could just remove the check. > > regards, > dan carpenter >
From 5986593f49044f1c4faef09b1e4db3ed8ec557d3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 18:51:42 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] staging: tidspridge: node.c: fix for possible null pointer dereference Removde unnecessary check for null pointer. Was largely found by using a static code analysis program called cppcheck. Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/staging/tidspbridge/rmgr/node.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/tidspbridge/rmgr/node.c b/drivers/staging/tidspbridge/rmgr/node.c index 9d3044a..d918f7f 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/tidspbridge/rmgr/node.c +++ b/drivers/staging/tidspbridge/rmgr/node.c @@ -2365,8 +2365,6 @@ static void delete_node(struct node_object *hnode, (struct proc_object *)hnode->processor; #endif int status; - if (!hnode) - goto func_end; hnode_mgr = hnode->node_mgr; if (!hnode_mgr) goto func_end; -- 1.7.10.4
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
