linux-kernel - Re: [3/3] GenWQE: Adjust 12 checks for null pointers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <15ccaf5d-3601-e895-900b-078fbca148d6@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Mon, 8 Jan 2018 14:50:12 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Frank Haverkamp <haver@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jörg-Stephan Vogt <jsvogt@...ibm.com>,
        Michael Rüttger <michael@...ra.de>
Subject: Re: [3/3] GenWQE: Adjust 12 checks for null pointers

> I personally like the explicit compare (ptr != NULL) more than the !ptr notation.

Coding style aspects can evolve, can't they?


> When was the checkpatch.pl script modified to suggest the latter notation?

Would you like to take another look at the software update “checkpatch: add
--strict "pointer comparison to NULL" test” from 2014-12-10?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b75ac618df751b927469ddbca63cf151a62f0f9d


> Is there any advantage other than the shorter notation?

* Do you eventually care for an influence on the run time characteristics
  for the compilation of this software module?

* How do you think about to reduce the dependency on a special preprocessor symbol?

Regards,
Markus