From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
Cc: Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>,
gfs2@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gfs2: fix 'passing zero to ERR_PTR()' warning
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 10:06:22 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a2d702b0-e819-47b0-a945-c2e38a162381@kadam.mountain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZRXA7n0wD83zhPxC@runicha.com>
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 11:37:42PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> Resolve the following Smatch static checker warning:
> fs/gfs2/acl.c:54 __gfs2_get_acl() warn: passing zero to 'ERR_PTR'
>
> by returning NULL when an extended attribute length is zero, instead of
> passing on zero to the ERR_PTR().
>
> Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
> ---
Passing zero to ERR_PTR() is not a bug.
You're patch doesn't change how the code works at all, right? So it's
like a cleanup patch. But the code was nicer in the original.
This is just a false positive. Ignore static checker false positives.
Fix the checker instead. Although in this case, I can't think of an
easy way fix the checker. Perhaps don't print a warning if the callers
check for NULL?
The passing zero to ERR_PTR() warning is actually a pretty good
heuristic. 90% of the time in new code this is a real bug. But in old
code then probably it's 0% real bugs because we've been reviewing these
warnings for over a decade.
I have a blog which might be useful.
https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/08/01/mixing-error-pointers-and-null/
When I'm reviewing this patch I think:
1) Does gfs2_xattr_acl_get() return zero? And it does.
2) Does that look intentional. It's harder to tell because there aren't
comments and it looks like it might be a missing error code. But
when you read it closely then actually it does look intentional.
In terms of Smatch, I consider it "intentional" if there is an
"error = 0;" within 5 lines for the goto. (Other languages like Rust
are better than C because they force everyone to follow the rules.
#trolling).
3) Do the callers of __gfs2_get_acl() check for NULL and they do.
So this code is fine.
I hope this helps you in your review process. 1) Ignore old warnings.
2) Ignore false positives. 3) If you think it is a bug, then try to
figure out how it will cause a crash. Look at the caller etc.
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-29 7:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-28 18:07 Deepak R Varma
2023-09-29 7:06 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2023-09-29 7:39 ` drv
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a2d702b0-e819-47b0-a945-c2e38a162381@kadam.mountain \
--to=dan.carpenter@linaro.org \
--cc=agruenba@redhat.com \
--cc=drv@mailo.com \
--cc=error27@gmail.com \
--cc=gfs2@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rpeterso@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®