On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 02:29:41PM +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> Hello Dan,
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Sorry this is so old. I was going through some old Smatch warnings.
> >
> > This is a semi-automatic email about new static checker warnings.
> >
> > The patch caf1eae20668: "carl9170: improve unicast PS buffering" from
> > Apr 24, 2011, leads to the following Smatch complaint:
> >
> > drivers/net/wireless/ath/carl9170/tx.c:1488 carl9170_op_tx()
> > error: we previously assumed 'sta' could be null (see line 1482)
> >
> > drivers/net/wireless/ath/carl9170/tx.c
> > 1481
> > 1482 if (sta) {
> > ^^^^^
> > New check.
> >
> > 1483 struct carl9170_sta_info *stai = (void *) sta->drv_priv;
> > 1484 atomic_inc(&stai->pending_frames);
> > 1485 }
> > 1486
> > 1487 if (info->flags & IEEE80211_TX_CTL_AMPDU) {
> > 1488 run = carl9170_tx_ampdu_queue(ar, sta, skb);
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Old dereference of "sta" inside the call to carl9170_tx_ampdu_queue().
> >
> > 1489 if (run)
> > 1490 carl9170_tx_ampdu(ar);
> >
> > Probably we can remove the check?
> What check do you want to remove? The check in smatch
> which produces the warning/error. Or the "if (sta) {" in line
> 1482?
>
> Or do you mean I should extend the check in 1487 to:
> if (sta) {
> ...
> if (info->flags & IEEE80211_TX_CTL_AMPDU) {
> ....
> }
> }
What I'm saying is that I don't if it's possible for "sta" to be
NULL at this pointer or not.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
