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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:42:14 +0100 From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> To: Juergen Schindele <schindele@...tec.de> Cc: Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@...il.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/3] gpiodev - API definitions On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 08:47:01AM +0200, Juergen Schindele wrote: > Am Dienstag, 10. April 2007 23:30 schrieb Paul Sokolovsky: > > +static inline int gpiodev_get_value(struct gpio *gpio) > > +{ > > + struct gpiodev_ops *ops = gpio->gpio_dev->dev.platform_data; > > wouldn't it be more sure to verify if xxx function is NOT null > before using it ?? Perhaps something like that > BUG_ON(!ops->get); > > > + return ops->get(&gpio->gpio_dev->dev, gpio->gpio_no); What does the BUG_ON buy us that oopsing due to a NULL pointer deref doesn't? Both cases you end up with a register dump and backtrace. In fact, on ARM the NULL pointer deref provides a more accurate register dump and backtrace than BUG_ON() can ever do. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists