From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ethdev: fix null pointer checking Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 17:52:44 +0100 Message-ID: <938cd677-9563-b29e-a4ab-3c2d84c519d8@intel.com> References: <20190403160726.1231-1-mohammad.abdul.awal@intel.com> <1807422.QXMQecOh3y@xps> <20190403164116.GA1344@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Mohammad Abdul Awal , dev@dpdk.org, arybchenko@solarflare.com, stable@dpdk.org To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190403164116.GA1344@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 4/3/2019 5:41 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 05:35:22PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> On 4/3/2019 5:27 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> 03/04/2019 18:07, Mohammad Abdul Awal: >>>> Null value for parameter name will cause segfault for the strnlen and >>>> strcmp functions. >>> >>> I'm not sure we want such obvious checks for all APIs. Here I would >>> say yes. >> >> These are internal functions, not APIs. I am for verifying input for >> (all) APIs but not for internal functions, drivers should call them and >> they are in our control, if they are passing NULL we can fix them :) >> > True, but if these are control path or init time code paths rather than > data path APIs, I don't see the harm in putting in the checks. No harm from performance point of view, agree, but also looks unnecessary to me.