Re: [2.6 patch] net/llc/llc_conn.c: fix possible NULL dereference

2007-05-19 Thread David Miller
From: Eugene Teo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 13:49:11 +0800 Spotted by the Coverity checker. Why am I not surprised :-( There is no bug here, if Coverity warns every single time skb_peek() is used and not tested against NULL, that's a very serious shortcoming of Coverity or what

Re: [2.6 patch] net/llc/llc_conn.c: fix possible NULL dereference

2007-05-18 Thread Herbert Xu
Eugene Teo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: diff --git a/net/llc/llc_conn.c b/net/llc/llc_conn.c index 3b8cfbe..28a3994 100644 --- a/net/llc/llc_conn.c +++ b/net/llc/llc_conn.c @@ -323,7 +323,8 @@ int llc_conn_remove_acked_pdus(struct sock *sk, u8 nr, u16 *how_many_unacked) if (!q_len)

Re: [2.6 patch] net/llc/llc_conn.c: fix possible NULL dereference

2007-05-18 Thread Eugene Teo
Randy Dunlap wrote: On Sat, 19 May 2007 13:13:07 +0800 Eugene Teo wrote: skb_peek() might return an empty list. skb should be checked before calling llc_pdu_sn_hdr() with it. Spotted by the Coverity checker. Signed-off-by: Eugene Teo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] Oh, and your patch has