On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 11:15:58PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 11:34:39AM -0400, Florin Malita wrote:
> > 'bh_result' & 'inode' are explicitly checked against NULL so they
> > shouldn't be dereferenced prior to that.
> >
> > Coverity ID: 1273, 1274.
> 
> AFAICS, the patch is BS, as usual with this type of patches.
> 
> Can "inode" and "bh_result" be NULL here? I bet they can't.

	This is a common result of this sort of scan.  The scan merely
provides good information, not a perfect patch.  There are two
possibilities:

	1) The scan is right, and the dereference is dangerous.  The
	   patch is correct.
	2) The dereference is not dangerous ("can't happen"), and the
	   later check for NULL is spurious.  A correct patch would
	   merely remove the check.

	This is clearly a case of (2), but I bet that (1) is seen just
as often.

Joel

-- 

Life's Little Instruction Book #444

	"Never underestimate the power of a kind word or deed."

Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/