linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] nfsd: Remove unnecessary assignment in nfs4xdr.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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 21 Aug 2020 00:37:45 +0100
From:   Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@...il.com>
To:     Frank van der Linden <fllinden@...zon.com>
Cc:     Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@...il.com>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nfsd: Remove unnecessary assignment in nfs4xdr.c

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 08:36:31PM +0000, Frank van der Linden wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:12:51PM +0100, Alex Dewar wrote:
> > 
> > In nfsd4_encode_listxattrs(), the variable p is assigned to at one point
> > but this value is never used before p is reassigned. Fix this.
> > 
> > Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value")
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c
> > index 259d5ad0e3f47..1a0341fd80f9a 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c
> > @@ -4859,7 +4859,7 @@ nfsd4_encode_listxattrs(struct nfsd4_compoundres *resp, __be32 nfserr,
> >                         goto out;
> >                 }
> > 
> > -               p = xdr_encode_opaque(p, sp, slen);
> > +               xdr_encode_opaque(p, sp, slen);
> > 
> >                 xdrleft -= xdrlen;
> >                 count++;
> > --
> > 2.28.0
> > 
> 
> Yep, I guess my linting missed that, thanks for the fix.
> 
> - Frank

Ping? The second patch in this series had a mistake in it, but I think
this one's still good to go :-)