ecryptfs: re-order a condition for static checkers
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> Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
0bdf8a8245
commit
4b47a8b51e
@ -1063,8 +1063,9 @@ ecryptfs_parse_tag_70_packet(char **filename, size_t *filename_size,
|
|||||||
"rc = [%d]\n", __func__, rc);
|
"rc = [%d]\n", __func__, rc);
|
||||||
goto out_free_unlock;
|
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++;
|
s->i++;
|
||||||
if (s->i == s->block_aligned_filename_size) {
|
if (s->i == s->block_aligned_filename_size) {
|
||||||
printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: Invalid tag 70 packet; could not "
|
printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: Invalid tag 70 packet; could not "
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user