Re: RDMA: Clean destroy CQ in drivers do not return errors

[Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1449 bytes --]

On Fri, 2019-06-14 at 14:59 +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Static analysis with Coverity reported an issue with the following
> commit:
> 
> commit a52c8e2469c30cf7ac453d624aed9c168b23d1af
> Author: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@mellanox.com>
> Date:   Tue May 28 14:37:28 2019 +0300
> 
>     RDMA: Clean destroy CQ in drivers do not return errors
> 
> In function bnxt_re_destroy_cq() contains the following:
> 
>         if (!cq->umem)
>                 ib_umem_release(cq->umem);

Given that the original test that was replaced was:
	if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(cq->umem))

we aren't really worried about a null cq, just that umem is valid.  So,
the logic is inverted on the test (or possibly we shouldn't have
replaced !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(cq->umem) at all).

But on closer inspection, the bnxt_re specific portion of this patch
appears to have another problem in that it no longer checks the result
of bnxt_qplib_destroy_cq() yet it does nothing to keep that function
from failing.

Leon, can you send a followup fix?

> Coverity detects this as a deference after null check on the null
> pointer cq->umem:
> 
> "var_deref_model: Passing null pointer cq->umem to ib_umem_release,
> which dereferences it"
> 
> Is the logic inverted on that null check?
> 
> Colin

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
    GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
    Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B  1274 B826 A333 0E57
2FDD

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]