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