linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] - [7/15] - remove defconfig ptr comparisons to 0

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1195015507.7468.86.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Date:	Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:45:07 -0500
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] - [7/15] - remove defconfig ptr comparisons to 0 -
	fs/lockd


On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 13:40 +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Tuesday November 13, joe@...ches.com wrote:
> > Remove defconfig ptr comparison to 0
> > 
> > Remove sparse warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/lockd/svcshare.c b/fs/lockd/svcshare.c
> > index 068886d..98548ad 100644
> > --- a/fs/lockd/svcshare.c
> > +++ b/fs/lockd/svcshare.c
> > @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ nlmsvc_unshare_file(struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_file *file,
> >  	struct nlm_share	*share, **shpp;
> >  	struct xdr_netobj	*oh = &argp->lock.oh;
> >  
> > -	for (shpp = &file->f_shares; (share = *shpp) != 0; shpp = &share->s_next) {
> > +	for (shpp = &file->f_shares; (share = *shpp); shpp = &share->s_next) {
> >  		if (share->s_host == host && nlm_cmp_owner(share, oh)) {
> >  			*shpp = share->s_next;
> >  			kfree(share);
> > 
> 
> I particularly disagree with this change as it now looked like it
> could be an '==' comparison that was mistyped.  Making it 
>         ....; (share = *shpp) != NULL; ....

There would also be the minor fact that the original test is being
inverted in this 'fix'. An accurate fix should at the very least be
   !(share = *shpp).

> makes the intent clear.

It would be a lot cleaner just to pull the entire assignment out of the
for() statement. IOW:

	for (shpp = &file->f_shares; *shpp != NULL; shpp = &(*shpp)->s_next) {
		struct nlm_share *share = *shpp;



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/