The "kmsg" pointer can't be NULL and we have already dereferenced it so
a check here would be useless.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
---
fs/io_uring.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 72bc378edebc..e9f339453ddb 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -3065,7 +3065,7 @@ static int io_sendmsg(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_kiocb **nxt,
if (req->io)
return -EAGAIN;
if (io_alloc_async_ctx(req)) {
- if (kmsg && kmsg->iov != kmsg->fast_iov)
+ if (kmsg->iov != kmsg->fast_iov)
kfree(kmsg->iov);
return -ENOMEM;
}
@@ -3219,7 +3219,7 @@ static int io_recvmsg(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_kiocb **nxt,
if (req->io)
return -EAGAIN;
if (io_alloc_async_ctx(req)) {
- if (kmsg && kmsg->iov != kmsg->fast_iov)
+ if (kmsg->iov != kmsg->fast_iov)
kfree(kmsg->iov);
return -ENOMEM;
}
--
2.11.0
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 05:39:45PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The "kmsg" pointer can't be NULL and we have already dereferenced it so
> a check here would be useless.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/io_uring.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index 72bc378edebc..e9f339453ddb 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -3065,7 +3065,7 @@ static int io_sendmsg(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_kiocb **nxt,
> if (req->io)
> return -EAGAIN;
> if (io_alloc_async_ctx(req)) {
> - if (kmsg && kmsg->iov != kmsg->fast_iov)
> + if (kmsg->iov != kmsg->fast_iov)
> kfree(kmsg->iov);
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
> @@ -3219,7 +3219,7 @@ static int io_recvmsg(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_kiocb **nxt,
> if (req->io)
> return -EAGAIN;
> if (io_alloc_async_ctx(req)) {
> - if (kmsg && kmsg->iov != kmsg->fast_iov)
> + if (kmsg->iov != kmsg->fast_iov)
> kfree(kmsg->iov);
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
Make sense.
Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Stefano
On 2/17/20 7:39 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The "kmsg" pointer can't be NULL and we have already dereferenced it so
> a check here would be useless.
Applied, thanks Dan.
--
Jens Axboe