linux-kernel - question about fs/jffs2/readinode.c

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1204280701210.1917@hadrien>
Date:	Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:06:16 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	dwmw2@...radead.org
cc:	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: question about fs/jffs2/readinode.c

The function read_direntry in fs/jffs2/readinode.c contains the following 
code:

         err = jffs2_flash_read(c, (ref_offset(ref)) + read,
                                rd->nsize - already, &read, &fd->name[already]);
 	if (unlikely(read != rd->nsize - already) && likely(!err))
                       return -EIO;

         if (unlikely(err)) {
                 JFFS2_ERROR("read remainder of name: error %d\n", err);
                 jffs2_free_full_dirent(fd);
                 return -EIO;
         }

Is it intentional that the first if doesn't free fd?  At first I thought 
that that might be the case, because what would be the point of having two 
conditionals if they are going to do the same thing.  But I can't see why 
fd should not be freed either, so maybe the two conditionals are just 
there to give different error messages?

thanks,
julia
--
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/