[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/7] device: prevent a NULL pointer dereference in __intel_peek_fd
david.s.gordon at intel.com
Mon Feb 15 13:47:55 UTC 2016
On 15/02/16 13:40, Martin Peres wrote:
> On 15/02/16 14:24, Dave Gordon wrote:
>> On 12/02/16 16:31, Martin Peres wrote:
>>> This is not a big issue to return -1 since the only codepath that uses
>>> it is for display purposes.
>>> Caught by Klockwork.
>>> Signed-off-by: Martin Peres <martin.peres at linux.intel.com>
>>> src/intel_device.c | 5 ++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> diff --git a/src/intel_device.c b/src/intel_device.c
>>> index 54c1443..35e652a 100644
>>> --- a/src/intel_device.c
>>> +++ b/src/intel_device.c
>>> @@ -650,7 +650,10 @@ int __intel_peek_fd(ScrnInfoPtr scrn)
>>> dev = intel_device(scrn);
>>> assert(dev && dev->fd != -1);
>> Doesn't Klocwork recognise the assert() above?
>> I thought that would tell it that dev can't be NULL.
> It does not, I had to close many false positives related to this...
Hmmm .. elsewhere (e.g. [4/7]) you have /added/ an assert, which I
thought must be so that Klocwork stops complaining that something might
be NULL ... maybe it can't handle the composite assertion? Does it
silence the complaint if you change:
assert(dev && dev->fd != -1);
assert(dev->fd != -1);
More information about the Intel-gfx