linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] kernel-audit: Deletion of an unnecessary check before the function call "audit_log

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:	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/