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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 22:36:34 +0100 From: Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de> To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> CC: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: net-PA Semi: Deletion of unnecessary checks before the function call "pci_dev_put" On 30.11.2014 21:40, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> Maybe this topic should be clarified somewhere (e.g. in "CodingStyle")? >> On the other hand i always found it obvious that its the callers >> responsibility to only pass sane parameters to the called functions... > > Can you imagine that any more source code places which would benefit from > check adjustments because of defensive programming? > I am not sure if i understand your question correctly. But i would not call sanity checks for function parameters "defensive programming". I would rather call it not being totally careless. So to me the question if those checks should be done or not is different from the question whether there are code parts that would benefit from an adjustment to defensive programming. Regards, Lino -- 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