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, 29 Mar 2017 14:19:31 +0530 From: SIMRAN SINGHAL <singhalsimran0@...il.com> To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de> Cc: wensong@...ux-vs.org, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>, Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>, Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, outreachy-kernel <outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] netfilter: Clean up tests if NULL returned on failure On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de> wrote: > > On Tuesday 2017-03-28 18:23, SIMRAN SINGHAL wrote: >>On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de> wrote: >>> On Tuesday 2017-03-28 15:13, simran singhal wrote: >>> >>>>Some functions like kmalloc/kzalloc return NULL on failure. When NULL >>>>represents failure, !x is commonly used. >>>> >>>>@@ -910,7 +910,7 @@ ip_vs_new_dest(struct ip_vs_service *svc, struct ip_vs_dest_user_kern *udest, >>>> } >>>> >>>> dest = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ip_vs_dest), GFP_KERNEL); >>>>- if (dest == NULL) >>>>+ if (!dest) >>>> return -ENOMEM; >>> >>> This kind of transformation however is not cleanup anymore, it's really >>> bikeshedding and should be avoided. There are pro and cons for both >>> variants, and there is not really an overwhelming number of arguments >>> for either variant to justify the change. >> >>Sorry, but I didn't get what you are trying to convey. And particularly pros and >>cons of both variants. > > The ==NULL/!=NULL part sort of ensures that the left side is a pointer, which > is lost when just using the variable and have it implicitly convert to bool. Thanks for the explaination!!!! But, according to me we should prefer != NULL over ==NULL according to coding style.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists