[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/7] device: prevent a NULL pointer dereference in __intel_peek_fd

[Dave Gordon]

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);
into:
     assert(dev);
     assert(dev->fd != -1);
?

.Dave.