mirror of
https://github.com/joel16/android_kernel_sony_msm8994.git
synced 2024-11-29 07:01:10 +00:00
[X25] x25_forward_call(): fix NULL dereferences
This patch fixes two NULL dereferences spotted by the Coverity checker. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
This commit is contained in:
parent
749bf9215e
commit
e4ce837de9
@ -26,64 +26,66 @@ int x25_forward_call(struct x25_address *dest_addr, struct x25_neigh *from,
|
||||
short same_lci = 0;
|
||||
int rc = 0;
|
||||
|
||||
if ((rt = x25_get_route(dest_addr)) != NULL) {
|
||||
if ((rt = x25_get_route(dest_addr)) == NULL)
|
||||
goto out_no_route;
|
||||
|
||||
if ((neigh_new = x25_get_neigh(rt->dev)) == NULL) {
|
||||
/* This shouldnt happen, if it occurs somehow
|
||||
* do something sensible
|
||||
*/
|
||||
goto out_put_route;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Avoid a loop. This is the normal exit path for a
|
||||
* system with only one x.25 iface and default route
|
||||
if ((neigh_new = x25_get_neigh(rt->dev)) == NULL) {
|
||||
/* This shouldnt happen, if it occurs somehow
|
||||
* do something sensible
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (rt->dev == from->dev) {
|
||||
goto out_put_nb;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Remote end sending a call request on an already
|
||||
* established LCI? It shouldnt happen, just in case..
|
||||
*/
|
||||
read_lock_bh(&x25_forward_list_lock);
|
||||
list_for_each(entry, &x25_forward_list) {
|
||||
x25_frwd = list_entry(entry, struct x25_forward, node);
|
||||
if (x25_frwd->lci == lci) {
|
||||
printk(KERN_WARNING "X.25: call request for lci which is already registered!, transmitting but not registering new pair\n");
|
||||
same_lci = 1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
read_unlock_bh(&x25_forward_list_lock);
|
||||
|
||||
/* Save the forwarding details for future traffic */
|
||||
if (!same_lci){
|
||||
if ((new_frwd = kmalloc(sizeof(struct x25_forward),
|
||||
GFP_ATOMIC)) == NULL){
|
||||
rc = -ENOMEM;
|
||||
goto out_put_nb;
|
||||
}
|
||||
new_frwd->lci = lci;
|
||||
new_frwd->dev1 = rt->dev;
|
||||
new_frwd->dev2 = from->dev;
|
||||
write_lock_bh(&x25_forward_list_lock);
|
||||
list_add(&new_frwd->node, &x25_forward_list);
|
||||
write_unlock_bh(&x25_forward_list_lock);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Forward the call request */
|
||||
if ( (skbn = skb_clone(skb, GFP_ATOMIC)) == NULL){
|
||||
goto out_put_nb;
|
||||
}
|
||||
x25_transmit_link(skbn, neigh_new);
|
||||
rc = 1;
|
||||
goto out_put_route;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Avoid a loop. This is the normal exit path for a
|
||||
* system with only one x.25 iface and default route
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (rt->dev == from->dev) {
|
||||
goto out_put_nb;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Remote end sending a call request on an already
|
||||
* established LCI? It shouldnt happen, just in case..
|
||||
*/
|
||||
read_lock_bh(&x25_forward_list_lock);
|
||||
list_for_each(entry, &x25_forward_list) {
|
||||
x25_frwd = list_entry(entry, struct x25_forward, node);
|
||||
if (x25_frwd->lci == lci) {
|
||||
printk(KERN_WARNING "X.25: call request for lci which is already registered!, transmitting but not registering new pair\n");
|
||||
same_lci = 1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
read_unlock_bh(&x25_forward_list_lock);
|
||||
|
||||
/* Save the forwarding details for future traffic */
|
||||
if (!same_lci){
|
||||
if ((new_frwd = kmalloc(sizeof(struct x25_forward),
|
||||
GFP_ATOMIC)) == NULL){
|
||||
rc = -ENOMEM;
|
||||
goto out_put_nb;
|
||||
}
|
||||
new_frwd->lci = lci;
|
||||
new_frwd->dev1 = rt->dev;
|
||||
new_frwd->dev2 = from->dev;
|
||||
write_lock_bh(&x25_forward_list_lock);
|
||||
list_add(&new_frwd->node, &x25_forward_list);
|
||||
write_unlock_bh(&x25_forward_list_lock);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Forward the call request */
|
||||
if ( (skbn = skb_clone(skb, GFP_ATOMIC)) == NULL){
|
||||
goto out_put_nb;
|
||||
}
|
||||
x25_transmit_link(skbn, neigh_new);
|
||||
rc = 1;
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
out_put_nb:
|
||||
x25_neigh_put(neigh_new);
|
||||
|
||||
out_put_route:
|
||||
x25_route_put(rt);
|
||||
|
||||
out_no_route:
|
||||
return rc;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user