netdev - Re: [PATCH 5/5] smsc95xx: enable power saving mode during system suspend

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: <CAKh2mn4XLCPfTFySEvtZc56J+WM863JtnsjF2D-RyDJatoyAww@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:58:13 +0100
From:	Steve Glendinning <steve@...well.net>
To:	Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] smsc95xx: enable power saving mode during system suspend

>> I hadn't thought that was a situation that could arise, is it?  Would
>> this happen if the USB device was removed during suspend?
>
> No, it should not happen.  But then, why test at all?

I thought it was common practice to add these tests to document an
assumption the developer made that later code relies on?  I had
assumed that the !dev condition should not be possible, hence the
simple BUG test.  If it is possible then I agree - I definitely need
to handle this more gracefully.

In this case, asserting that dev is not NULL will make the code fail
loudly there instead of a few lines down when the netdev_info call
dereferences dev->net.  Either way something bad will happen!

-Steve
--
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