On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:26:02 +0100, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:13:16AM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 March 2005 22:14, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > The Coverity checker noted that while all other uses of param in
> > > ps2_command() were guarded by a NULL check, this one wasn't.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > --- linux-2.6.12-rc1-mm1-full/drivers/input/serio/libps2.c.old 2005-03-24 02:37:08.000000000 +0100
> > > +++ linux-2.6.12-rc1-mm1-full/drivers/input/serio/libps2.c 2005-03-24 02:38:28.000000000 +0100
> > > @@ -106,9 +106,10 @@ int ps2_command(struct ps2dev *ps2dev, u
> > > command == PS2_CMD_RESET_BAT ? 1000 : 200))
> > > goto out;
> > >
> > > - for (i = 0; i < send; i++)
> > > - if (ps2_sendbyte(ps2dev, param[i], 200))
> > > - goto out;
> > > + if (param)
> > > + for (i = 0; i < send; i++)
> > > + if (ps2_sendbyte(ps2dev, param[i], 200))
> > > + goto out;
> > >
> >
> > I somewhat disagree on this one. If caller specified that command requires
> > arguments to be sent and it does not provide them I'd rather had it OOPS on
> > the spot. With receiving, however, caller does not really have control over
> > number of characters coming from the device so specifying NULL allows just
> > ignore whatever response there is.
>
> Understood.
>
> Could this be handled with a BUG_ON?
>
Yes, if it will make the checker happy. Although I (and this is
probably just me) use BUG_ON only if kernel would not OOPS otherwise,
to avoid scribbling over random memory and such.
--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
