linux-kernel - Re: scsi: aic7xxx: Remove null pointer checks before kfree()

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: <20200409114813.g3k4phoguduz6pw2@medion>
Date:   Thu, 9 Apr 2020 12:48:13 +0100
From:   Alex Dewar <alex.dewar@....co.uk>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
        "James E. J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Qiujun Huang <hqjagain@...il.com>
Subject: Re: scsi: aic7xxx: Remove null pointer checks before kfree()

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 06:32:19PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> I hope that you would like to take another update suggestion into account
> >> (besides a typo correction for your commit message).
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1220189/
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/20200403164712.49579-1-alex.dewar@gmx.co.uk/
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand the relevance.
>
> I pointed your patch out for another contributor.
>
>
> > Are you saying I should reference this other patch?
>
> I suggest to take another look at the development history for presented
> patches according to a known source code search pattern.

Ok, cool. How should I go about that?

The thing is that this seems like an obvious improvement (albeit not a
terribly critical one). It reduces SLoC and removes an unnecessary
check. AFAICS the patch you mention wasn't rejected on technical
grounds, but simply wasn't picked up. If there is a reason why this
change isn't warranted then I'd like to know why so I can send better
patches in future :-)

>
>
> > Thanks for the reference. I'll mention it in the commit if I do a v2.
>
> I am curious under which circumstances the affected source files
> will actually be improved in ways which were suggested a few times.
>
> Regards,
> Markus