On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 09:21:43PM +0200, Kees Bakker wrote: > This was detected by Coverity, CID 1600787 > > Signed-off-by: Kees Bakker <kees@xxxxxxxxxxxx> This is how your patch looks like in lore. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241020192243.C6A0F18DA7F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ The subject and the body of the email are far apart. It's like a book, right? The title of the book isn't the first sentence of the book. Feel free to restate the subject if necessary. The commit message should really say the impact of the bug, (how it looks like to the user) and you need a Fixes tag. > --- > drivers/staging/gpib/common/gpib_os.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gpib/common/gpib_os.c b/drivers/staging/gpib/common/gpib_os.c > index d5860a0a131f..57ff1ed30dac 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/gpib/common/gpib_os.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/gpib/common/gpib_os.c > @@ -1667,6 +1667,8 @@ static int autospoll_ioctl(gpib_board_t *board, gpib_file_private_t *file_priv, > return -EFAULT; > > desc = handle_to_descriptor(file_priv, 0); /* board handle is 0 */ > + if (!desc) > + return -EINVAL; There is always a board 0 so the check is unnecessary. This kind of heuristic tends to have a lot of false positives. It's better to just ignore static checkers when they are wrong. regards, dan carpenter
