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-boun...@lists.01.org] on behalf of Ashley Pittman [apitt...@ddn.com] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 11:55 AM To: Rickard Strandqvist Cc: de...@driverdev.osuosl.org; hpdd-disc...@lists.01.org; Greg Kroah-Hartman; linux-ker...@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_strandqv...@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_strandqv...@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-disc...@lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss _______________________________________________ HPDD-discuss mailing list hpdd-disc...@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
