On 01/29/2015 01:47 PM, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
2015-01-29 20:40 GMT+01:00 Frank Zago <fzago@xxxxxxxx>:
On 01/29/2015 12:47 PM, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
Fix a possible null pointer dereference, there is
otherwise a risk of a possible null pointer dereference.
This was found using a static code analysis program called cppcheck
Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist
<rickard_strandqvist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
index 84defce..00e1361 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
@@ -165,12 +165,14 @@ static inline int update_get_reply_buf(struct
update_reply *reply, void **buf,
int result;
ptr = update_get_buf_internal(reply, index, &size);
+
+ LASSERT((ptr != NULL && size >= sizeof(int)));
Now size is tested before result. So it could assert if result < 0, while
the function would have returned before.
+
result = *(int *)ptr;
if (result < 0)
return result;
- LASSERT((ptr != NULL && size >= sizeof(int)));
*buf = ptr + sizeof(int);
return size - sizeof(int);
}
But if prt is null krachar on the line:
result = *(int *)ptr;
Maybe there should be two LASSERT then.
Yes, that would be safer.
Frank.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
