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, 14 Nov 2007 12:50:46 -0500 From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no> To: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] - [7/15] - remove defconfig ptr comparisons to 0 - fs/lockd On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 23:45 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 13:40 +1100, Neil Brown wrote: > > On Tuesday November 13, joe@...ches.com wrote: > > > Remove defconfig ptr comparison to 0 > > > > > > Remove sparse warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/lockd/svcshare.c b/fs/lockd/svcshare.c > > > index 068886d..98548ad 100644 > > > --- a/fs/lockd/svcshare.c > > > +++ b/fs/lockd/svcshare.c > > > @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ nlmsvc_unshare_file(struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_file *file, > > > struct nlm_share *share, **shpp; > > > struct xdr_netobj *oh = &argp->lock.oh; > > > > > > - for (shpp = &file->f_shares; (share = *shpp) != 0; shpp = &share->s_next) { > > > + for (shpp = &file->f_shares; (share = *shpp); shpp = &share->s_next) { > > > if (share->s_host == host && nlm_cmp_owner(share, oh)) { > > > *shpp = share->s_next; > > > kfree(share); > > > > > > > I particularly disagree with this change as it now looked like it > > could be an '==' comparison that was mistyped. Making it > > ....; (share = *shpp) != NULL; .... > > There would also be the minor fact that the original test is being > inverted in this 'fix'. An accurate fix should at the very least be > !(share = *shpp). Apologies to Joe. I must have been tired when I typed the above. However I'm still NACKing the patch: removing the '!= 0' altogether reduces code legibility rather than improving it, particularly when we have that ugly assignment. If the intent is just to silence 'sparse', then replace with '!= NULL'. > > makes the intent clear. > > It would be a lot cleaner just to pull the entire assignment out of the > for() statement. IOW: > > for (shpp = &file->f_shares; *shpp != NULL; shpp = &(*shpp)->s_next) { > struct nlm_share *share = *shpp; ...however doing something like the above would be altogether preferable, since that cleans up the assignment which is the source of the ugliness. Cheers Trond - 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