netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] can: fix oops caused by wrong rtnl dellink usage

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

Date:	Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:36:57 +0200
From:	Holger Schurig <holgerschurig@...il.com>
To:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel@...gutronix.de, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] can: fix oops caused by wrong rtnl dellink usage

> static void can_dellink(struct net_device *dev, struct list_head *head);
>
> and
>
> static void can_dellink(struct net_device *dev, struct list_head *head)
> {
> 	return;
> }

Wouldn't the canonical form be this:

static void can_dellink(struct net_device *dev, struct list_head *head)
{
}


- the curly braces make sure this isn't a forward definition
- but no useless return either


But then again, this "return" is only cosmetical. No compiler will
generate any code from it.