michaelh/zephyr
1
0
Fork 0
Code Releases Activity

lib: add explanation comment in "work->handler" case

Browse source 
Coding scanning tool raises a violation that happens dereferencing
of the "work" pointer in the expression "work->handler"

As were discussed before in PR #35664 it is not true.
Add explanation comment, because static code analysis tool
raised false-positive violation there.

Signed-off-by: Maksim Masalski <maksim.masalski@intel.com>
This commit is contained in:
Maksim Masalski 2021-07-07 16:05:14 +08:00 • committed by Christopher Friedt
commit 8ed9cddbc5
1 changed files with 13 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

13
kernel/work.c
View file

@ -597,6 +597,19 @@ static void work_queue_main(void *workq_ptr, void *p2, void *p3)
work = CONTAINER_OF(node, struct k_work, node);
flag_set(&work->flags, K_WORK_RUNNING_BIT);
flag_clear(&work->flags, K_WORK_QUEUED_BIT);
/* Static code analysis tool can raise a false-positive violation
* in the line below that 'work' is checked for null after being
* dereferenced.
*
* The work is figured out by CONTAINER_OF, as a container
* of type struct k_work that contains the node.
* The only way for it to be NULL is if node would be a member
* of struct k_work object that has been placed at address NULL,
* which should never happen, even line 'if (work != NULL)'
* ensures that.
* This means that if node is not NULL, then work will not be NULL.
*/
handler = work->handler;
} else if (flag_test_and_clear(&queue->flags,
K_WORK_QUEUE_DRAIN_BIT)) {