lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: obdclass: lprocfs_status.c: Fix for possible null pointer dereference
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 11:36:22PM +0100, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
> There is otherwise a risk of a possible null pointer dereference.
>
> Was largely found by using a static code analysis program called cppcheck.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@spectrumdigital.se>
> ---
> .../lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c | 20 +++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c
> index 61e04af..4a7891a 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c
> @@ -1897,17 +1897,15 @@ int lprocfs_write_frac_u64_helper(const char *buffer, unsigned long count,
> }
>
> units = 1;
> - switch (*end) {
> - case 'p': case 'P':
> - units <<= 10;
> - case 't': case 'T':
> - units <<= 10;
> - case 'g': case 'G':
> - units <<= 10;
> - case 'm': case 'M':
> - units <<= 10;
> - case 'k': case 'K':
> - units <<= 10;
> + if (end) {
> + switch (*end) {
> + case 'p': case 'P':
> + case 't': case 'T':
> + case 'g': case 'G':
> + case 'm': case 'M':
> + case 'k': case 'K':
> + units <<= 10;
> + }

You know you just changed the logic in the code, right?

Why? Have you tested this?

greg k-h


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-12-15 00:21    [W:0.036 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site