[PATCH] ecryptfs: re-order a condition for static checkers

[PATCH] ecryptfs: re-order a condition for static checkers

[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 <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>

diff --git a/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c b/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
index e74fe84d0886..624ff4409c61 100644
--- a/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
+++ b/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
@@ -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 "

Re: [PATCH] ecryptfs: re-order a condition for static checkers

[Dan Carpenter]

Can we merge this patch?  KASAN will probably complain about this as
well, I think...

regards,
dan carpenter

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 01:43:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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 <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c b/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
> index e74fe84d0886..624ff4409c61 100644
> --- a/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
> +++ b/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
> @@ -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 "

Re: [PATCH] ecryptfs: re-order a condition for static checkers

[Tyler Hicks]

On 2018-12-14 14:51:13, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 01:43:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > 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 <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c b/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
> > index e74fe84d0886..624ff4409c61 100644
> > --- a/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
> > +++ b/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
> > @@ -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 "