Ashley,
I sort of understand your larger point, but in this case, I think the purpose of the
assert is much better served by the move Rickard is suggesting. Otherwise only one of its
conditions will ever trigger. It's not that different to die on the assertion or from
a null dereference, but I think it's marginally better to fail the assertion. And it
definitely doesn't make sense to have it there and never triggered, which it was
before.
- Patrick
________________________________________
From: HPDD-discuss [hpdd-discuss-bounces(a)lists.01.org] on behalf of Ashley Pittman
[apittman(a)ddn.com]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 11:55 AM
To: Rickard Strandqvist
Cc: devel(a)driverdev.osuosl.org; HPDD-discuss(a)lists.01.org; Greg Kroah-Hartman;
linux-kernel(a)vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: include:
lustre_update.h: Fix for possible null pointer dereference
Rickard,
On 21 Dec 2014, at 22:43, Rickard Strandqvist
<rickard_strandqvist(a)spectrumdigital.se> wrote:
The NULL check was done to late, and there it was a risk
of a possible null pointer dereference.
This was partially found by 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)));
+
result = *(int *)ptr;
if (result < 0)
return result;
- LASSERT((ptr != NULL && size >= sizeof(int)));
This looks odd to me, LASSERT is essentially BUG_ON() so is used for checking logic bugs.
Moving LASSERT calls doesn’t seem the correct way of resolving a logic problem and if
you’re doing static analysis it might be more productive to do it this with LASSERT
disabled.
*buf = ptr + sizeof(int);
return size - sizeof(int);
}
--
1.7.10.4
_______________________________________________
HPDD-discuss mailing list
HPDD-discuss(a)lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss
_______________________________________________
HPDD-discuss mailing list
HPDD-discuss(a)lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss