Hi Dan
Quite right! Had to try it.
Do nothing then?
But you must agree that it is still ugly and confusing code.
Kind regards
Rickard Strandqvist
2014-12-15 11:25 GMT+01:00 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 11:37:18PM +0100, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
>> There is otherwise a risk of a possible null pointer dereference.
>>
>> Was largely found by using a static code analysis program called cppcheck.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c
>> index 9f719bc..9ba6293 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c
>> @@ -237,13 +237,15 @@ static ssize_t osc_cur_grant_bytes_seq_write(struct file *file, const char *buff
>> size_t count, loff_t *off)
>> {
>> struct obd_device *obd = ((struct seq_file *)file->private_data)->private;
>> - struct client_obd *cli = &obd->u.cli;
>> + struct client_obd *cli;
>
> This isn't really a dereference. You're just getting the address of
> obd->u.cli. So if obd is NULL then it won't crash.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
