On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 17:05:18 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The defect has been detected and confirmed in the function 
>> OGLBlitToSurfaceViaTexture() located in the file 
>> src/java.desktop/share/native/common/java2d/opengl/OGLBlitLoops.c with 
>> static code analysis. This defect can potentially lead to a null pointer 
>> dereference.
>> 
>> The pointer pf is dereferenced in line 324 without checking for nullptr, 
>> although earlier in line 274 the same pointer is checked for nullptr, which 
>> indicates that it can be null.
>> 
>> In the same file, line 551 calls OGLBlitToSurfaceViaTexture() from line 263, 
>> where NULL is passed in place of pf.
>> All other calls are fine.
>> 
>> Also, another function with a similar issue from the same file, 
>> OGLBlitSwToTexture() from line 396.
>> 
>> In src/java.desktop/unix/native/libawt_xawt/awt/gtk3_interface.c gtk3_load()
>> The pointer fp_glib_check_version can be null, but it is dereferenced 
>> without any check. Although in the same file, for example, line 280 contains 
>> a check, this check does not lead to termination of execution.
>> 
>> 
>> In src/java.desktop/share/native/libsplashscreen/splashscreen_gif.c 
>> SplashDecodeGif()
>> The pointer colorMap is dereferenced after it has been checked against 
>> nullptr in lines 151 and 206. Moreover, between these checks and the 
>> mentioned location (line 282), the pointer is not modified in any way.
>> 
>> According to 
>> [this](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/26002#issuecomment-3023050372) 
>> comment, this PR contains fixes for similar cases in other places.
>
>>The pointer pf is dereferenced in line 324 without checking for nullptr, 
>>although earlier in line 274 the same pointer is checked for nullptr, which 
>>indicates that it can be null.
> 
> It is better first to confirm whether this pointer can actually be NULL. If 
> it cannot then remove the unnecessary earlier NULL check.

@mrserb Do you agree with this option?

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26799#issuecomment-3360279247

Reply via email to