The NULL check was done to late, and there it was a risk
of a possible null pointer dereference.

This was partially found by using a static code analysis program called 
cppcheck.

Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqv...@spectrumdigital.se>
---
 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)));
+
        result = *(int *)ptr;
 
        if (result < 0)
                return result;
 
-       LASSERT((ptr != NULL && size >= sizeof(int)));
        *buf = ptr + sizeof(int);
        return size - sizeof(int);
 }
-- 
1.7.10.4

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

Reply via email to