[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B17772A.80605@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:30:34 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Patch] net: fix an array index overflow
Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 03:26:02AM -0500, Amerigo Wang wrote:
>> Don't use the address of an out-of-boundary element.
>>
>> Maybe this is not harmful at runtime, but it is still
>> good to improve it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang@...hat.com>
>> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
>>
>
> It may be coincidence but my static checker smatch also complains
> about the code you modified.
>
> It's the wrong idea to fix code to please a checker. You end up
> doing things like adding an extra "return -ENOTREACHED" to silence
> warnings. Then the next person who writes a checker has to figure
> out how to seperate the unreachable code which was added to suppress
> gcc warnings from bits which are unreachable because of typos.
>
> Really any code that a human can read, a static checker should also
> be able to read. Computer programs are just state machines. At
> the function level they are quite small state machines. It's all
> logic and math which computers are very good at. So it should be
> fairly easy to fix the checker. ;)
>
Well, in some cases smatch seems really wrong, but not in this
case I think, or at least, smatch is suggesting us to improve
this code.
Please check Eric's reply in this thread, his patch looks nice
for me.
Thanks.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists