On 06/12/2017 03:28 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
Hi Guenter,
Please, see my comments below
Quoting Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 05:02:23PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
NULL check at line 76: if (conn_info) {, implies that pointer conn_info
might be NULL, but this pointer is being previously dereferenced,
which might cause a NULL pointer dereference.
Add NULL check before dereferencing pointer conn_info in order to
avoid a potential NULL pointer dereference.
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1362349
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/nfc/nci/core.c | 11 +++++------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/nfc/nci/core.c b/net/nfc/nci/core.c
index 61fff42..d2198ce 100644
--- a/net/nfc/nci/core.c
+++ b/net/nfc/nci/core.c
@@ -70,14 +70,13 @@ int nci_get_conn_info_by_dest_type_params(struct nci_dev *ndev, u8 dest_type,
struct nci_conn_info *conn_info;
list_for_each_entry(conn_info, &ndev->conn_info_list, list) {
conn_info is set in list_for_each_entry() using container_of(),
which is never NULL. Plus, it is dereferenced there as well.
The check is unnecessary.
Thanks for clarifying.
Guenter
- if (conn_info->dest_type == dest_type) {
+ if (conn_info && conn_info->dest_type == dest_type) {
if (!params)
return conn_info->conn_id;
- if (conn_info) {
So, this NULL check could be removed as it seems it is not useful at all ?
Exactly.
- if (params->id == conn_info->dest_params->id &&
- params->protocol == conn_info->dest_params->protocol)
- return conn_info->conn_id;
- }
+
+ if (params->id == conn_info->dest_params->id &&
+ params->protocol == conn_info->dest_params->protocol)
+ return conn_info->conn_id;
}
}
Thank you
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
