On Apr 8, 2015, at 2:53 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The intention was to check "IS_ERR(*buf)" instead of "IS_ERR(buf)".
> It's never an ERR_PTR() in the current code so this is a harmless
> mistake.
I was a little confused about this patch, thinking that the ext4 crypto
code had already been merged into master for some reason. It would
probably have been better as a review comment on the actual patch
"[PATCH 14/22] ext4 crypto: filename encryption facilities" so it isn't
missed when the series is refreshed?
Cheers, Andreas
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> I have a static checker warning for when people check IS_ERR() and it's
> not an error pointer. Adding these extra checks introduces deliberate
> warnings and makes my work harder which means that bugs are missed.
>
> Also there is no good reason to pass an ERR_PTR to
> ext4_fname_crypto_free_buffer() but eventually someone will take
> advantage of this feature to write ugly code. Ugly code is going to be
> buggy.
>
> At least do a "if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR(*buf))) return;". I could filter out
> impossible conditions which are inside a WARN_ON() and it will mean
> people don't actually pass error pointers here.
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/crypto_fname.c b/fs/ext4/crypto_fname.c
> index 5fda403..f076b52 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/crypto_fname.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/crypto_fname.c
> @@ -558,7 +558,7 @@ int ext4_fname_crypto_alloc_buffer(struct ext4_fname_crypto_ctx *ctx,
> */
> void ext4_fname_crypto_free_buffer(void **buf)
> {
> - if (*buf == NULL || IS_ERR(buf))
> + if (*buf == NULL || IS_ERR(*buf))
> return;
> kfree(*buf);
> *buf = NULL;
Cheers, Andreas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
