On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 14:16 -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 11:15:58PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 11:34:39AM -0400, Florin Malita wrote:
> > > 'bh_result' & 'inode' are explicitly checked against NULL so they
> > > shouldn't be dereferenced prior to that.
> > >
> > > Coverity ID: 1273, 1274.
> >
> > AFAICS, the patch is BS, as usual with this type of patches.
> >
> > Can "inode" and "bh_result" be NULL here? I bet they can't.
>
> This is a common result of this sort of scan. The scan merely
> provides good information, not a perfect patch. There are two
> possibilities:
>
> 1) The scan is right, and the dereference is dangerous. The
> patch is correct.
> 2) The dereference is not dangerous ("can't happen"), and the
> later check for NULL is spurious. A correct patch would
> merely remove the check.
>
> This is clearly a case of (2), but I bet that (1) is seen just
> as often.
and in case of (2); newer gcc is often smart enough to do that
automatically :)
-
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]
