netdev - Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: fix warning comparing pointer to 0

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: <4983305a-3119-bb4b-bb51-520ed5bd28ac@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:23:08 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@...ux.alibaba.com>, shuah@...nel.org
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, kafai@...com,
        songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        kpsingh@...nel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: fix warning comparing pointer to 0

On 3/18/21 2:55 AM, Jiapeng Chong wrote:
> Fix the following coccicheck warning:
> 
> ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c:76:15-16: WARNING
> comparing pointer to 0.
> 
> Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c
> index 5f645fd..d4247d6 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c
> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ struct bpf_fentry_test_t {
>   SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test7")
>   int BPF_PROG(test7, struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg)
>   {
> -	if (arg == 0)
> +	if (!arg)
>   		test7_result = 1;
>   	return 0;
>   }
> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ int BPF_PROG(test7, struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg)
>   SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test8")
>   int BPF_PROG(test8, struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg)
>   {
> -	if (arg->a == 0)
> +	if (!arg->a)
>   		test8_result = 1;
>   	return 0;
>   }
> 

This doesn't apply. Please rebase against bpf-next tree, and also make sure to
squash any other such patches into a single one.