lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Subjectre: ALSA: control - add layer registration routines
Date
Hi,

Static analysis on linux-next with Coverity has detected a potential
issue in the following commit:

commit 3f0638a0333bfdd0549985aa620f2ab69737af47
Author: Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>
Date: Wed Mar 17 18:29:41 2021 +0100

ALSA: control - add layer registration routines

The static analysis is as follows:

2072 void snd_ctl_disconnect_layer(struct snd_ctl_layer_ops *lops)
2073 {
2074 struct snd_ctl_layer_ops *lops2, *prev_lops2;
2075
2076 down_write(&snd_ctl_layer_rwsem);

assignment: Assigning: prev_lops2 = NULL.

2077 for (lops2 = snd_ctl_layer, prev_lops2 = NULL; lops2; lops2
= lops2->next)
2078 if (lops2 == lops) {

null: At condition prev_lops2, the value of prev_lops2 must be NULL.
dead_error_condition: The condition !prev_lops2 must be true.

2079 if (!prev_lops2)
2080 snd_ctl_layer = lops->next;
2081 else

'Constant' variable guards dead code (DEADCODE) dead_error_line:
Execution cannot reach this statement: prev_lops2->next = lops->next;.
Local variable prev_lops2 is assigned only once, to a constant
value, making it effectively constant throughout its scope. If this is
not the intent, examine the logic to see if there is a missing
assignment that would make prev_lops2 not remain constant.

2082 prev_lops2->next = lops->next;
2083 break;
2084 }
2085 up_write(&snd_ctl_layer_rwsem);
2086 }

I couldn't quite figure out the original intent of the prev_lops use, so
I'd thought I'd report this issue as the code does look incorrect.

Colin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-03-31 17:18    [W:2.000 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site