On Fri, 2019-06-14 at 14:59 +0100, Colin Ian King wrote: > Hi, > > Static analysis with Coverity reported an issue with the following > commit: > > commit a52c8e2469c30cf7ac453d624aed9c168b23d1af > Author: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]> > Date: Tue May 28 14:37:28 2019 +0300 > > RDMA: Clean destroy CQ in drivers do not return errors > > In function bnxt_re_destroy_cq() contains the following: > > if (!cq->umem) > ib_umem_release(cq->umem);
Given that the original test that was replaced was:
if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(cq->umem))
we aren't really worried about a null cq, just that umem is valid. So,
the logic is inverted on the test (or possibly we shouldn't have
replaced !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(cq->umem) at all).
But on closer inspection, the bnxt_re specific portion of this patch
appears to have another problem in that it no longer checks the result
of bnxt_qplib_destroy_cq() yet it does nothing to keep that function
from failing.
Leon, can you send a followup fix?
> Coverity detects this as a deference after null check on the null
> pointer cq->umem:
>
> "var_deref_model: Passing null pointer cq->umem to ib_umem_release,
> which dereferences it"
>
> Is the logic inverted on that null check?
>
> Colin
--
Doug Ledford <[email protected]>
GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57
2FDD
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
