On 01/29/2015 01:47 PM, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
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.
Yes, that would be safer.
Frank.