netdev - Re: net-PA Semi: Deletion of unnecessary checks before the function call "pci_dev

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: <547B8DE2.9030301@gmx.de>
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