linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] staging: unisys: Remove allocation from declaration line

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:22:12 +0100
From:	Quentin Lambert <lambert.quentin@...il.com>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, sparmaintainer@...sys.com,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Benjamin Romer <benjamin.romer@...sys.com>,
	David Kershner <david.kershner@...sys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] staging: unisys: Remove allocation from declaration
 line

On 11/02/2015 11:23, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 06:26:27AM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:02:14PM +0100, Quentin Lambert wrote:
>>> This patch removes allocation from declaration line because
>>> people are known to gloss over declarations.
>> Again, who are these lazy people, and why are they reading kernel code?
>>
>  From my work with smatch:
> 1) Probably 70-80% of inconsistent NULL checking is when done in the
>     initializer.  I'm sending a patch for one of these today.
> 2) If there is an allocation in the initializer then it's more likely
>     that the NULL check will be missing.
> Initializers are a blind spot that people do not read.  It's not just
> one maintainer, it's consistent across the board.
>
> Also if you put an allocation in the initializer then it almost always
> has to be mangled to fit in 80 characters and it looks ugly.  But after
> these patches then all the allocations fit naturally.
>
> Plus you have to have that blank line to separate the initialization
> paragraph from the paragraph with the check for allocation failure.
>
> Really, it is fairly uncommon to put an allocation in the initalizer.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
In the case this patch wasn't accepted what should I do with
this one: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/10/182 ?

Do you want me to submit a non-dependent version?

regards,
Quentin


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/