[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111011215549.GC30887@longonot.mountain>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:55:49 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] cipso: remove an unneeded NULL check in
cipso_v4_doi_add()
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 05:20:11PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > - if (doi_def == NULL || doi_def->doi == CIPSO_V4_DOI_UNKNOWN)
> > + if (doi_def->doi == CIPSO_V4_DOI_UNKNOWN)
> > goto doi_add_return;
> > for (iter = 0; iter < CIPSO_V4_TAG_MAXCNT; iter++) {
> > switch (doi_def->tags[iter]) {
>
> I'd prefer to keep the NULL check in there as it does afford a little
> bit of extra safety and this is management code after all, not
> per-packet processing code, so the extra check should have no
> observable performance impact.
The dereferences on the lines before mean we would Oops before
reaching the check. But I guess I can move the check forward. The
error handling at goto doi_add_return relies on a non-NULL value for
doi_def but I could just put a return in front of the dereference.
if (!doi_def)
return -EINVAL;
I'll send a patch to do this tomorrow.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists