netdev - Re: [PATCH] x25: remove redundant pointer 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: <20220509124427.GG4009@kadam>
Date:   Mon, 9 May 2022 15:44:27 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Ozgur <ozgurk@...e.org>
Cc:     Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>,
        Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-x25@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x25: remove redundant pointer dev

On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 04:57:40AM +0400, Ozgur wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 1:45 AM Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Pointer dev is being assigned a value that is never used, the assignment
> > and the variable are redundant and can be removed. Also replace null check
> > with the preferred !ptr idiom.
> >
> 
> Hello,
> 
> *dev pointer is device assign global linked list and shouldnt be
> touched by the driver so *dev wont get any value right?

Why are you talking about "*dev" instead of "dev"?

> Also seems to use this while network interface is initializing because
> some activation information and stats information is also kept here,
> for example, open *dev will call when ifconfig is called from.
> 
> route, link, forward these inital activate and move all values with
> net_device *dev?

It's not clear what you are saying...

When I review these kinds of patches I ask:
1) Does Colin's patch change run time behavior?  Obviosly not.
2) Is the current code buggy?  Sometimes when there is a static checker
   warning it indicates a typo in the code.  I do not see a bug in the
   original code before Colin's patch.
3) What was the author's original intent?  This code predates git but
   I think the "dev" was just a going to be a shorter name to type than
   "x25->neighbour->dev".

I honestly have no idea what you are saying.  At first I thought you
might be saying that this is stub code.  But that seems wrong.  Also we
do not allow stub code in the kernel.

regards,
dan carpenter