On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 09:15:16AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:34:26 +0300 > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 07:55:38AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 23:43:48 +0300 > > > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > We know that "addr" is non-NULL here so there is no need to check if > > > > "addr + offset" is NULL. > > > > > > What about "UINT_MAX - addr + 1 == offset" case on 32bit arch ? :) > > > > > > > I think if that's really possible then we are so screwed that a NULL > > check won't help? > > Fair enough. Even if the addr is not NULL, that could be out of text area. > Could you add that to patch description, and also clean up the whole > function? It seems "invalid" label is no more needed. Sure. I'll resend. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
