[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Do not misuse Coverity please (Was: sound/oss/cs46xx.c: fix a check after use)

Hi Andrew, all,

> > Think about it. If the pointer could be NULL, then it's unlikely that
> > the bug would have gone unnoticed so far (unless the code is very
> > recent). Coverity found 3 such bugs in one i2c driver [1], and the
> > correct solution was to NOT check for NULL because it just couldn't
> > happen.
> No, there is a third case: the pointer can be NULL, but the compiler
> happened to move the dereference down to after the check.

Wow. Great point. I completely missed that possibility. In fact I didn't
know that the compiler could possibly alter the order of the
instructions. For one thing, I thought it was simply not allowed to. For
another, I didn't know that it had been made so aware that it could
actually figure out how to do this kind of things. What a mess. Let's
just hope that the gcc folks know their business :)

I'll try to remember this next time I debug something. Do not assume
that instructions are run in the order seen in the source. Irk.

> If the optimiser is later changed, or if someone tries to compile the code
> with -O0, it will oops.

Interesting. Then wouldn't it be worth attempting such compilations at
times, and see if we get additional oops? Doesn't gcc have a flag to
specifically forbid this family of optimizations?

Jean Delvare
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-06 13:31    [W:0.109 / U:25.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site