netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] kfree_skb() bug in 2.4.22

To: Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kfree_skb() bug in 2.4.22
From: Dan Kegel <dank@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:57:58 -0700
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, toby@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, coreteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200310101743.48483.ioe-lkml@rameria.de>
References: <1065617075.1514.29.camel@localhost> <200310101453.44353.ioe-lkml@rameria.de> <20031010060050.057aab50.davem@redhat.com> <200310101743.48483.ioe-lkml@rameria.de>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
Ingo Oeser wrote:
On Friday 10 October 2003 15:00, David S. Miller wrote:

Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Would you mind __attribute_nonnull__ for these functions, if we
enable GCC 3.3 support for this[1]?

I would say yes, but why? All this attribute does is optimize away tests for NULL which surprise surprise we don't have any of in kfree_skb().


And it wouldn't warn about passing NULL to these functions? That's bad...
But maybe sparse/smatch are better for this...

Things like smatch, sparse, and checker can use the __attribute_nonnull__. I'd say it's a good idea. Should I submit the patch, then, since I'm the one who like the idea? - Dan

--
Dan Kegel
http://www.kegel.com
http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>