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

[Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>]

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 "