From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: walter harms <wharms@bfs.de>
Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
linux-media@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] [media] coda: improve safety in coda_register_device()
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:49:00 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150108114900.GL15033@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54AE6434.4070805@bfs.de>
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 12:04:20PM +0100, walter harms wrote:
> > @@ -1844,10 +1844,11 @@ static int coda_register_device(struct coda_dev *dev, int i)
> > {
> > struct video_device *vfd = &dev->vfd[i];
> >
> > - if (i > ARRAY_SIZE(dev->vfd))
> > + if (i >= dev->devtype->num_vdevs)
> > return -EINVAL;
>
> hi,
> just a minor question. if i can not be trusted, i feel you should move the
> array access:
> struct video_device *vfd = &dev->vfd[i];
> after the check
> i >= dev->devtype->num_vdevs
> at least that would improve the readability by not trigger my internal alarm
> "check after access"
The "access" is just taking the address, not dereferencing so it's ok.
This kind of code is fairly common and CodingStyle doesn't have an
opinion here so I left it how the original author wrote it.
regards,
dan carpenter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: walter harms <wharms@bfs.de>
Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
linux-media@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] [media] coda: improve safety in coda_register_device()
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:49:00 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150108114900.GL15033@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54AE6434.4070805@bfs.de>
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 12:04:20PM +0100, walter harms wrote:
> > @@ -1844,10 +1844,11 @@ static int coda_register_device(struct coda_dev *dev, int i)
> > {
> > struct video_device *vfd = &dev->vfd[i];
> >
> > - if (i > ARRAY_SIZE(dev->vfd))
> > + if (i >= dev->devtype->num_vdevs)
> > return -EINVAL;
>
> hi,
> just a minor question. if i can not be trusted, i feel you should move the
> array access:
> struct video_device *vfd = &dev->vfd[i];
> after the check
> i >= dev->devtype->num_vdevs
> at least that would improve the readability by not trigger my internal alarm
> "check after access"
The "access" is just taking the address, not dereferencing so it's ok.
This kind of code is fairly common and CodingStyle doesn't have an
opinion here so I left it how the original author wrote it.
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-08 11:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-08 10:07 [patch] [media] coda: improve safety in coda_register_device() Dan Carpenter
2015-01-08 10:07 ` Dan Carpenter
2015-01-08 11:04 ` walter harms
2015-01-08 11:04 ` walter harms
2015-01-08 11:49 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2015-01-08 11:49 ` Dan Carpenter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150108114900.GL15033@mwanda \
--to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@osg.samsung.com \
--cc=p.zabel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=wharms@bfs.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.