netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv6: Remove some pointless conditionals 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: <49A3C3D1.2040908@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:54:25 +0800
From:	Yang Hongyang <yanghy@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	yjwei@...fujitsu.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: Remove some pointless conditionals before	kfree_skb()

Herbert Xu wrote:
> Yang Hongyang <yanghy@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> I think kfree_skb() suppose that you have handled NULL pointer 
>> because it uses `unlikely` to check the pointer.
>> So I don't think these conditions are pointless...
>> 437 void kfree_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
>> 438 {
>> 439         if (unlikely(!skb))
>> 440                 return;
> 
> These checks were specifically added so that callers didn't have
> to check for NULL.

Yes,but if the the callers checked for NULL,it's OK right?

> 
> Cheers,


-- 
Regards
Yang Hongyang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html