| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5469B836.8030507@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:56:22 +0100 From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> CC: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, trivial@...nel.org, Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kernel-audit: Deletion of an unnecessary check before the function call "audit_log_end" > You removed the statement from "if (foo) kfree_fsm(foo);" so now it > prints a warning. > > drivers/s390/net/fsm.c Would it be better to continue the clarification of affected implementation details under the discussion topic "s390/net: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two function calls"? >> It is an usual software development challenge to decide on the best source code places >> where to put input parameter validation (and when it can be omitted), isn't it? > > No, it's not. You should just try to write the most readable software > you can instead of removing if statements because you can. Additional safety checks have also got an effect on source code readability, haven't they? Regards, Markus -- 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