From: Helmut Raiger
eth_get_dev_by_name() is not safe to use for devname being NULL
as it uses strcmp. This patch makes it return NULL if devname NULL
is passed.
Signed-off-by: Helmut Raiger
---
net/eth.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/eth.c b/net
On Monday, July 04, 2011 06:29:51 helmut.rai...@hale.at wrote:
> eth_get_dev_by_name() is not safe to use for devname being NULL
> as it uses strcmp. This patch makes it return NULL if devname NULL
> is passed.
i'm not sure about this. passing NULL is wrong, and the caller should catch
that shou
On 07/05/2011 05:44 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, July 04, 2011 06:29:51 helmut.rai...@hale.at wrote:
>> eth_get_dev_by_name() is not safe to use for devname being NULL
>> as it uses strcmp. This patch makes it return NULL if devname NULL
>> is passed.
> i'm not sure about this. passing N
On Wednesday, July 06, 2011 03:15:08 Helmut Raiger wrote:
> On 07/05/2011 05:44 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday, July 04, 2011 06:29:51 helmut.rai...@hale.at wrote:
> >> eth_get_dev_by_name() is not safe to use for devname being NULL
> >> as it uses strcmp. This patch makes it return NULL i
On 07/06/2011 09:38 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 06, 2011 03:15:08 Helmut Raiger wrote:
>> On 07/05/2011 05:44 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 04, 2011 06:29:51 helmut.rai...@hale.at wrote:
eth_get_dev_by_name() is not safe to use for devname being NULL
as
Hi Helmut,
> On 07/06/2011 09:38 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 06, 2011 03:15:08 Helmut Raiger wrote:
>>> On 07/05/2011 05:44 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday, July 04, 2011 06:29:51 helmut.rai...@hale.at wrote:
> eth_get_dev_by_name() is not safe to use for devname b
Hi Helmut,
Le 04/07/2011 12:29, helmut.rai...@hale.at a écrit :
> From: Helmut Raiger
Seems like your git send-email config does not have your name along with
your e-mail address, causing this From: to appear in the patch body (and
the mail itself to lack your name) -- git can handle this, I th
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 02:12, Helmut Raiger wrote:
> On 07/06/2011 09:38 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 06, 2011 03:15:08 Helmut Raiger wrote:
>>> On 07/05/2011 05:44 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday, July 04, 2011 06:29:51 helmut.rai...@hale.at wrote:
> eth_get_dev_by_
On 07/07/2011 07:46 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> those NULL checks should not be necessary either. a correctly written
> networking driver should only register itself with the miiphy layer
> when it has successfully registered itself with the eth layer. thus
> any of the miiphy callbacks should
On 07/07/2011 06:46 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hi Helmut,
>
> Le 04/07/2011 12:29, helmut.rai...@hale.at a écrit :
>> From: Helmut Raiger
>
> Seems like your git send-email config does not have your name along
> with your e-mail address, causing this From: to appear in the patch
> body (and the
On Monday, July 11, 2011 05:53:49 Helmut Raiger wrote:
> On 07/07/2011 07:46 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > those NULL checks should not be necessary either. a correctly written
> > networking driver should only register itself with the miiphy layer
> > when it has successfully registered itself wi
Hi Mike,
> On Monday, July 11, 2011 05:53:49 Helmut Raiger wrote:
>> On 07/07/2011 07:46 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > those NULL checks should not be necessary either. a correctly written
>> > networking driver should only register itself with the miiphy layer
>> > when it has successfully regi
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 05:22, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> but the point isnt the impact of this single check. it sets the
>> precedence that every function in u-boot that takes a pointer should
>> start over protecting itself against poorly written code originating
>> elsewher
On 07/12/2011 11:22 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> i did go through the level of detail and showed the call graphs ...
> none of
> which should allow a driver tested as working to even once hit the
> NULL path.
As I said, these are the call graphs currently existing...
This was also my trail.
Hi Mike,
[...]
> not really. i consider this to be "garbage-in garbage-out". imo,
> u-boot isnt a C library that should be padded with garbage checking
> all over. the result only helps broken systems (edge cases) while
> hindering the rest.
>
> i wouldnt have a problem with adopting an NDEBUG
Hi Helmut,
> On 07/12/2011 11:22 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
>
>> > i did go through the level of detail and showed the call graphs ...
>> > none of
>> > which should allow a driver tested as working to even once hit the
>> > NULL path.
>>
>> As I said, these are the call graphs currently existing..
On 07/13/2011 01:46 PM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
>
>> The NDEBUG approach however, as Mike suggested, was what I was
>> looking for in the first place.
> Great!
>Detlev
>
Again, not so great. U-boot uses all kinds of assert(), BUG_ON(),
ASSERT() all over the place.
This probably needs a project
Hi Helmut,
Le 11/07/2011 12:10, Helmut Raiger a écrit :
> On 07/07/2011 06:46 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>> Hi Helmut,
>>
>> Le 04/07/2011 12:29, helmut.rai...@hale.at a écrit :
>>> From: Helmut Raiger
>>
>> Seems like your git send-email config does not have your name along
>> with your e-mail add
On Thursday, July 14, 2011 05:14:07 Helmut Raiger wrote:
> On 07/13/2011 01:46 PM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> >> The NDEBUG approach however, as Mike suggested, was what I was
> >> looking for in the first place.
>
> Again, not so great. U-boot uses all kinds of assert(), BUG_ON(),
> ASSERT() all ove
On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 02:32:37 Helmut Raiger wrote:
for future reference, please dont send html e-mails
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/ma
20 matches
Mail list logo
