From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Kegel Subject: Re: [PATCH] kfree_skb() bug in 2.4.22 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:57:58 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <3F86E516.7070004@kegel.com> References: <1065617075.1514.29.camel@localhost> <200310101453.44353.ioe-lkml@rameria.de> <20031010060050.057aab50.davem@redhat.com> <200310101743.48483.ioe-lkml@rameria.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , toby@cbcg.net, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org, netfilter@lists.netfilter.org, akpm@zip.com.au, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, pekkas@netcore.fi, jmorris@intercode.com.au, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, jgarzik@pobox.com Return-path: To: Ingo Oeser In-Reply-To: <200310101743.48483.ioe-lkml@rameria.de> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Ingo Oeser wrote: > On Friday 10 October 2003 15:00, David S. Miller wrote: > >>Ingo Oeser 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