ecryptfs: re-order a condition for static checkers
Quoted 2 lines · Dan Carpenter
Can we merge this patch? KASAN will probably complain about this as well, I think...
Yes, my apologies for the way too long delay. I just noticed that there's another commit of yours that I left sitting in the ecryptfs next branch from last year and never pushed it up. I'll get both commits in and will return to keeping a better eye on ecryptfs submissions.
Thanks!
Tyler
Quoted 27 lines
regards,
dan carpenterQuoted 22 lines · Dan Carpenter
Static checkers complain that we are using "
s->i" as an offset before we check whether it is within bounds. It doesn't matter much but we can easily swap the order of the checks to make everyone happy.Signed-off-by Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c +3
-2@@ -1063,8 +1063,9 @@ ecryptfs_parse_tag_70_packet(char **filename, size_t *filename_size, "rc = [%d]\n", __func__, rc); goto out_free_unlock; } -while (s->decrypted_filename[s->i] !='\0' - && s->i < s->block_aligned_filename_size) + +while (s->i < s->block_aligned_filename_size && + s->decrypted_filename[s->i] !='\0' ) s->i++;if (s->i = s->block_aligned_filename_size) { printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: Invalid tag 70 packet; could not "