linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] staging: rtl8188eu: Deletion of unnecessary checks before three function calls

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1411122237380.2055@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date:	Wed, 12 Nov 2014 22:40:34 +0100 (CET)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
cc:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, trivial@...nel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] staging: rtl8188eu: Deletion of unnecessary checks
 before three function calls

> > This is especially true if you have trained yourself to know that
> > free_netdev() can't accept NULL pointers.
> 
> Do you need to adjust your concerns a bit over time when function variants
> provide a corresponding safety check in their implementations?

There would not seem to be any _need_ to do so.  An unnecessary null test 
is always safe.  The only real problem that I can see with an unnecessary 
null test in error handling code (intrinsically not critical performance 
wise) is if it gives the illusion that a value can be null when it cannot.

julia
--
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/