From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 250371361 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2025 17:38:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742405936; cv=none; b=fGO/fXw9dhrMgU7Oz59hs+42R3CrZG5YAEHP9UWr0VFDaK7TEoRObO8ZaJ/a+UU1hYm4Wsg+GFVZA3btQZ1dFlw3k075C445fiK2PjpqPxxpWVtqZBsn/w4Z67SOVNBKxRQHLzCx0e4QCQkud4x18ud06cuz1/6OcpTjBjXFqes= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742405936; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OS750zsOhsm0zRWuj41DPLa6HTkZm4qf9YADRneYMmA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=kU4yPxpDKTwd+dc5uRIRa1gwWccqgPu+dW1DPkVkEqDTzXDMzt/DRp/pOgAOYHjG5hbI+7nFZZXb/QLFhZbMo8elbGbJHGazjv99IrPj0rSRgNUTqkBSLENId5v43Bp0O1E2/i7KVE3hKgX0sjhgxBxj+h+QEGy7Rfqx/W+Azh0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=PpmxryDy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="PpmxryDy" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1742405934; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rOucbCH8053ol58iaNfOQldT2PnQaQ3dzjaib8K+1rk=; b=PpmxryDykFPh6Q/JSVXSXWH0L8DFwGBsEnTJkkuU46TXikTvbj7OS8PFLY3ax4/SXYpGC5 q3NBdgEmuy4tqJvJVbRihyxpECxrNUcf8viYgIES7PJVon58ulBjH9VjVvjbSQIzzvXRdh lIWecXKIU0NC8hbZ07wm1c7PlXJIESQ= Received: from mail-wr1-f70.google.com (mail-wr1-f70.google.com [209.85.221.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-252-59iDURuJPEu5dGapRmaRkg-1; Wed, 19 Mar 2025 13:38:53 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 59iDURuJPEu5dGapRmaRkg-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 59iDURuJPEu5dGapRmaRkg_1742405932 Received: by mail-wr1-f70.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3912d5f6689so4386491f8f.1 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2025 10:38:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1742405931; x=1743010731; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rOucbCH8053ol58iaNfOQldT2PnQaQ3dzjaib8K+1rk=; b=ppZ0lPZyE/CsMvre6j9dlaDkRqn+RpbEs8WbhqHmUV08QEyW1GKRB3fBQQ2UWkN6e+ 42BvhVKNSgJrstyezCcB6jRH7LTXQ8kC3958hapMUbA2OGvkm+9hIcx0effUhkRgRQ35 srsUInA6mW5yNT53J6Xpnbj6vX2lTAVdM/IKkIcrH7wUc5mcUF9qrzKZVAA7S5joyTou jMI1z/mF4Yw6otZza8xtU9XV2NpOCbvoeCCUIHYmJqQ+I1NxBtaxsAxiliEmfA3jRHl2 NG24FoKJxvwIAiglRI1iUzotEVYHLQeGK7zyNops18zPlCr3HdXSB42G/UKsTtTeUXJK qVzQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWg3u3u79wx6CAnddPeTZ50zYNwNki5eI7MmZRFcn4laQEGIbjLr1D7R+rzW1Tq/E9fqJee7Wk=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxjevjJWFaWbAaOt+hqAPjIjgn5Upb6ZsjxdR9sFthhbBGue3qP /vfQIOIv7ZM0u07HPyRJTIl7Kh25f4ECFIoY97Rwe+90/hJgqeT2sN7fRZsOKQ7Lm9AAU4ODJnY xMekgcSxmYIIbkKbW9/D0ri+dscS58I/45BGxvyH1RY9/VGZYRJejOp5UgbVTOA== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsLnu1Gzz7YtVEvWTxHpCbpzOhM3TfrR+/Sn4NjMXsOo1wtmi7wBvIfJWnL+wO tgdstLi2IJpmPrhQtxLKq60YiWVJs3OcsJQnG7GR65PkXlTMFgyd6iZpwDmF9LcoT+ym/ohEc/v pYU12SkNl7K8Ws2/UxMhgX4C2XigehBeDtb88v/RnTcX1kEVVbV5yWd2wJ5fra3zVjz94yXvff9 AsYJtRYbKc1Bn9V0cxRfbWngjzPjXHGwQQkCwAJG/mEzQ7WbvdITsRfwqLEsF+CspvT5LCzvoCD a16F8Ftzo1gi4TOjVEHcPRD0q267kg3mJGiOLs0on2Ae0Q== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5f84:0:b0:391:46a6:f0db with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-399795df888mr243970f8f.37.1742405931389; Wed, 19 Mar 2025 10:38:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEHG5Tm2aTbhmmrCTzYClNAc5qOmeImMeQaQKe4i+YdSRkAsvTNxuFmNMQxghPMgkdbjpxDPA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5f84:0:b0:391:46a6:f0db with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-399795df888mr243952f8f.37.1742405930965; Wed, 19 Mar 2025 10:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.88.253] (146-241-10-172.dyn.eolo.it. [146.241.10.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-395cb7eb8c2sm21081012f8f.85.2025.03.19.10.38.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Mar 2025 10:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <6365c171-5550-4640-92bc-0151a4de61a1@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 18:38:49 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] xfrm: Remove unnecessary NULL check in xfrm_lookup_with_ifid() To: Dan Carpenter , Steffen Klassert , Herbert Xu Cc: "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Simon Horman , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org References: <2eebea1e-5258-4bcb-9127-ca4d7c59e0e2@stanley.mountain> Content-Language: en-US From: Paolo Abeni In-Reply-To: <2eebea1e-5258-4bcb-9127-ca4d7c59e0e2@stanley.mountain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 3/12/25 6:21 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > This NULL check is unnecessary and can be removed. It confuses > Smatch static analysis tool because it makes Smatch think that > xfrm_lookup_with_ifid() can return a mix of NULL pointers and errors so > it creates a lot of false positives. Remove it. > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter > --- > I have wanted to remove this NULL check for a long time. Someone > said it could be done safely. But please, please, review this > carefully. I think it's better if this patch goes first into the ipsec/xfrm tree, so that hopefully it gets some serious testing before landing into net-next. @Steffen, @Herber: could you please take this in your tree? Thanks, Paolo