Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Jun 2014 07:37:45 -0700 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: lzo1x_decompress_safe: Macro compares unsigned to 0 (NO_EFFECT) |
| |
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 09:22:47AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > This was introduced by: > commit 206a81c18401c0cde6e579164f752c4b147324ce > Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > Date: Fri Jun 20 22:00:53 2014 -0700 > > lzo: properly check for overruns > > Thanks, > //richard > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for Linux > Datum: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 22:09:11 -0700 > Von: scan-admin@coverity.com > > > Hi, > > > Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to Linux found with Coverity Scan. > > Defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan > Showing 1 of 1 defect(s) > > > ** CID 1224102: Macro compares unsigned to 0 (NO_EFFECT) > /lib/lzo/lzo1x_decompress_safe.c: 225 in lzo1x_decompress_safe() > > > ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > *** CID 1224102: Macro compares unsigned to 0 (NO_EFFECT) > /lib/lzo/lzo1x_decompress_safe.c: 225 in lzo1x_decompress_safe() > 219 op += t; > 220 ip += t; > 221 } else > 222 #endif > 223 { > 224 NEED_IP(t, 3); > >>> CID 1224102: Macro compares unsigned to 0 (NO_EFFECT) > >>> This greater-than-or-equal-to-zero comparison of an unsigned value is always true. "t + 0UL >= 0UL". > 225 NEED_OP(t, 0); > 226 while (t > 0) { > 227 *op++ = *ip++; > 228 t--; > 229 } > 230 } > > > ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Looks like coverity needs to fix their "this is how you test for an overflow" logic, right? Or did I get the test wrong?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |