| Message ID | 20160819160857.32254-1-vegard.nossum@oracle.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 18:08:57 +0200 > We've already set sk to sock->sk and dereferenced it, so if it's NULL > we would have crashed already. Moreover, if it was NULL we would have > crashed anyway when jumping to 'out' and trying to unlock the sock. > Furthermore, if we had assigned a different value to 'sk' we would > have been calling lock_sock() and release_sock() on different sockets. > > My conclusion is that these two lines are complete nonsense and only > serve to confuse the reader. > > Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com> Applied.
diff --git a/net/irda/af_irda.c b/net/irda/af_irda.c index 8d2f7c9..db63969 100644 --- a/net/irda/af_irda.c +++ b/net/irda/af_irda.c @@ -845,9 +845,6 @@ static int irda_accept(struct socket *sock, struct socket *newsock, int flags) if (sock->state != SS_UNCONNECTED) goto out; - if ((sk = sock->sk) == NULL) - goto out; - err = -EOPNOTSUPP; if ((sk->sk_type != SOCK_STREAM) && (sk->sk_type != SOCK_SEQPACKET) && (sk->sk_type != SOCK_DGRAM))
We've already set sk to sock->sk and dereferenced it, so if it's NULL we would have crashed already. Moreover, if it was NULL we would have crashed anyway when jumping to 'out' and trying to unlock the sock. Furthermore, if we had assigned a different value to 'sk' we would have been calling lock_sock() and release_sock() on different sockets. My conclusion is that these two lines are complete nonsense and only serve to confuse the reader. Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com> --- net/irda/af_irda.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)