2015-01-29 20:40 GMT+01:00 Frank Zago <fzago(a)cray.com>:
On 01/29/2015 12:47 PM, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
>
> Fix a possible null pointer dereference, there is
> otherwise a risk of a possible null pointer dereference.
>
> This was found using a static code analysis program called cppcheck
>
> Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist
> <rickard_strandqvist(a)spectrumdigital.se>
> ---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
> index 84defce..00e1361 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
> @@ -165,12 +165,14 @@ static inline int update_get_reply_buf(struct
> update_reply *reply, void **buf,
> int result;
>
> ptr = update_get_buf_internal(reply, index, &size);
> +
> + LASSERT((ptr != NULL && size >= sizeof(int)));
Now size is tested before result. So it could assert if result < 0, while
the function would have returned before.
> +
> result = *(int *)ptr;
>
> if (result < 0)
> return result;
>
> - LASSERT((ptr != NULL && size >= sizeof(int)));
> *buf = ptr + sizeof(int);
> return size - sizeof(int);
> }
>
But if prt is null krachar on the line:
result = *(int *)ptr;
Maybe there should be two LASSERT then.
Kind regards
Rickard Strandqvist