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&gt; --- 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)));

+ result = *(int *)ptr; if (result < 0) return result; - LASSERT((ptr != NULL && size >= sizeof(int))); *buf = ptr + sizeof(int); return size - sizeof(int); }

2015-01-29 20:40 GMT+01:00 Frank Zago <fzago(a)cray.com&gt;: > 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&gt; >> --- >> 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.