[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1321352783.1858.62.camel@hakki>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:26:23 +0200
From: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@....com>
To: ext Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: re: IPv6 routing, NLM_F_* flag support: REPLACE and EXCL
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 12:01 +0300, ext Dan Carpenter wrote:
> flags support, warn about missing CREATE flag
>
> Hello Matti Vaittinen,
>
> This is a semi-automatic email about new static checker warnings.
>
> The patch 4a287eba2de3: "IPv6 routing, NLM_F_* flag support: REPLACE
> and EXCL flags support, warn about missing CREATE flag" from Nov 14,
> 2011, leads to the following Smatch complaint:
>
> net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c +656 fib6_add_rt2node()
> error: we previously assumed 'info' could be null (see line 641)
>
> net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
> 640 (info->nlh->nlmsg_flags&NLM_F_REPLACE));
> 641 int add = ((NULL == info || NULL == info->nlh) ||
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Checked here.
>
> 642 (info->nlh->nlmsg_flags&NLM_F_CREATE));
> 656 if (NULL != info->nlh &&
> ^^^^^^^^^
> Not checked here. Btw, I looked at the callers and info is always
> a valid pointer.
Yes. It really seems the info is always a valid pointer.
I could find only two places where this info can come from.
First is ip6_ins_rt at route.c where info is allocated from stack.
Second is ip6_route_add, where info is part of the
fib6_config struct - and already assumed to be valid.
I'll prepare a patch which removes these unnecessary checks.
--
Matti Vaittinen
+358 504863070
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Told a UDP joke the other night...
...but I'm not sure everyone got it...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists