Message ID | 20170530215123.GA7484@embeddedgus |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Hi Jarkko, Please, see my comments below Quoting Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>: > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 04:51:23PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >> NULL check at line 147: if (chip) {, implies chip might be NULL. >> Function dev_get_drvdata() dereference pointer chip. >> Move pointer priv assignment inside the IF block that checks >> pointer chip. >> >> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397646 >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@embeddedor.com> > > It cannot be. > I got it. > /Jarkko > >> --- >> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c >> index 0d322ab..0826efd 100644 >> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c >> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c >> @@ -142,9 +142,10 @@ static struct platform_device *pdev; >> static void atml_plat_remove(void) >> { >> struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev); >> - struct tpm_atmel_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev); >> + struct tpm_atmel_priv *priv; >> >> if (chip) { So, this NULL check could be removed? >> + priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev); >> tpm_chip_unregister(chip); >> if (priv->have_region) >> atmel_release_region(priv->base, priv->region_size); >> -- >> 2.5.0 >> Thank you -- Gustavo A. R. Silva ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 05:25:44PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > Hi Jarkko, > > Please, see my comments below > > Quoting Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>: > > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 04:51:23PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > NULL check at line 147: if (chip) {, implies chip might be NULL. > > > Function dev_get_drvdata() dereference pointer chip. > > > Move pointer priv assignment inside the IF block that checks > > > pointer chip. > > > > > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397646 > > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@embeddedor.com> > > > > It cannot be. > > > > I got it. > > > /Jarkko > > > > > --- > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c | 3 ++- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c > > > index 0d322ab..0826efd 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c > > > @@ -142,9 +142,10 @@ static struct platform_device *pdev; > > > static void atml_plat_remove(void) > > > { > > > struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev); > > > - struct tpm_atmel_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev); > > > + struct tpm_atmel_priv *priv; > > > > > > if (chip) { > > So, this NULL check could be removed? Yes, this would be right way to fix it. /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c index 0d322ab..0826efd 100644 --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c @@ -142,9 +142,10 @@ static struct platform_device *pdev; static void atml_plat_remove(void) { struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev); - struct tpm_atmel_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev); + struct tpm_atmel_priv *priv; if (chip) { + priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev); tpm_chip_unregister(chip); if (priv->have_region) atmel_release_region(priv->base, priv->region_size);
NULL check at line 147: if (chip) {, implies chip might be NULL. Function dev_get_drvdata() dereference pointer chip. Move pointer priv assignment inside the IF block that checks pointer chip. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397646 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@embeddedor.com> --- drivers/char/tpm/tpm_atmel.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)