Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH] staging: lustre: include: lustre_update.h: Fix for possible null pointer dereference

From: Frank Zago
Date: Thu Jan 29 2015 - 14:51:08 EST


On 01/29/2015 01:47 PM, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
2015-01-29 20:40 GMT+01:00 Frank Zago <fzago@xxxxxxxx>:
On 01/29/2015 12:47 PM, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:

Fix a possible null pointer dereference, there is
otherwise a risk of a possible null pointer dereference.

This was found using a static code analysis program called cppcheck

Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist
<rickard_strandqvist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
index 84defce..00e1361 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
@@ -165,12 +165,14 @@ static inline int update_get_reply_buf(struct
update_reply *reply, void **buf,
int result;

ptr = update_get_buf_internal(reply, index, &size);
+
+ LASSERT((ptr != NULL && size >= sizeof(int)));


Now size is tested before result. So it could assert if result < 0, while
the function would have returned before.


+
result = *(int *)ptr;

if (result < 0)
return result;

- LASSERT((ptr != NULL && size >= sizeof(int)));
*buf = ptr + sizeof(int);
return size - sizeof(int);
}





But if prt is null krachar on the line:
result = *(int *)ptr;

Maybe there should be two LASSERT then.


Yes, that would be safer.

Frank.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/