netdev - RE: [net-next-2.6 25/27] e1000e: static analysis tools complain of a possible null ptr p dereference

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: <EA929A9653AAE14F841771FB1DE5A136602D54FD2F@rrsmsx501.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:35:45 -0700
From:	"Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
CC:	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"davem@...emleft.org" <davem@...emleft.org>,
	"Allan, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>,
	"bphilips@...ell.com" <bphilips@...ell.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next-2.6 25/27] e1000e: static analysis tools complain of
 a possible null ptr p dereference

>-----Original Message-----
>From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org] On
>Behalf Of Joe Perches
>Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 4:45 AM
>To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T
>Cc: davem@...emloft.net; davem@...emleft.org; Allan, Bruce W;
>netdev@...r.kernel.org; gospo@...hat.com; bphilips@...ell.com
>Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 25/27] e1000e: static analysis tools complain of
>a possible null ptr p dereference
>
>On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 02:06 -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000e/ethtool.c b/drivers/net/e1000e/ethtool.c
>[]
>> +		default:
>> +			data[i] = 0;
>> +			continue;
>> +			break;
>
>Using
>
>	continue;
>	break;
>
>is odd and unhelpful.
>Just continue; is sufficient and clear.

It's odd and without consequence but not necessarily "unhelpful" as it can protect from bugs in case someone was to add another case statement. While unlikely, bugs in switch statements due to missing breaks are not unheard of.

Looking at the kernel source there is no consistency as far as break in the default: case is concerned.

Dave, unless this is infringing on some coding style rule, I would request that the patch be applied as is.

Thanks,
Emil