On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:36:28AM -0500, Ed L. Cashin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 01:40:25AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > This patch fixes a NULL dereference introduced by
> > commit e407a7f6cd143b3ab4eb3d7e1cf882e96b710eb5:
> >
> > This quite unusual error handling through a switch introduces NULL
> > dereferences if exactly one of the two k{c,z}alloc's failed.
>
> Hmm. If exactly one of the two fails, then the value of the switch
> conditional is 1 (well, certainly not zero). It will jump over the
> zero case, and there's a return in the default case, so I'm having
> trouble seeing the danger.
>
> What exactly is Coverity saying? That would be interesting to know.
The Coverity checker was wrong in this case, and I didn't spot it when
checking since the code is really confusing.
> Ed L Cashin <[email protected]>
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
