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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:05:17 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: Nick Krause <xerofoify@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, fabf@...net.be, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Check for Null return of function of affs_bread in function affs_truncate On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 01:59:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Nick Krause wrote: > > > Ok that's fine I would return as if it's a NULL the other parts of the > > function can't continue. > > Nick > > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:08:05PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote: > > >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@...il.com> > > >> --- > > >> fs/affs/file.c | 2 ++ > > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/fs/affs/file.c b/fs/affs/file.c > > >> index a7fe57d..f26482d 100644 > > >> --- a/fs/affs/file.c > > >> +++ b/fs/affs/file.c > > >> @@ -923,6 +923,8 @@ affs_truncate(struct inode *inode) > > >> > > >> while (ext_key) { > > >> ext_bh = affs_bread(sb, ext_key); > > >> + if (!ext_bh) > > >> + return; > > > > > > The problem is that we don't know if we should return here or break > > > here. If you don't understand the code, then it's best to just leave it > > > alone. > > Dan, what kind of attitude is that? I'm just catching up on email after being offline for a while. I apologize that my email came off ruder than intended. I just meant that as a general rule, sometimes you should leave the static checker warning there if you aren't sure what the correct fix is. Even when it's a real bug, don't just guess at it, you have to be sure. Otherwise you just create a more subtle bug that the static checker can't detect. regards, dan carpenter -- 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