Daniel Burgener <dburgener@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 9/27/2023 4:41 PM, James Carter wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 3:27 PM Daniel Burgener
>> <dburgener@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> @@ -3661,21 +3615,17 @@ static int cil_check_for_bad_inheritance(struct cil_tree_node *node)
>>>> return rc;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -static int __cil_resolve_ast_node(struct cil_tree_node *node, void *extra_args)
>>>> +static int __cil_resolve_ast_node(struct cil_tree_node *node, struct cil_args_resolve *args)
>>>> {
>>>> int rc = SEPOL_OK;
>>>> - struct cil_args_resolve *args = extra_args;
>>>> + struct cil_db *db = args->db;
>>>> enum cil_pass pass = 0;
>>>>
>>>> - if (node == NULL || args == NULL) {
>>>> - goto exit;
>>>> - }
>>>> -
>>>
>>> Is deleting the "node == NULL" part of this check intended here? It
>>> seems unrelated to the rest of the commit, and it's not locally obvious
>>> that it's safe.
>>
>> You are right. It is not related to the rest of the commit. There are
>> a bunch of these sorts of checks that are useless and really annoy me.
>> The function __cil_resolve_ast_node() is called once from
>> __cil_resolve_ast_node_helper() and neither node nor args can be NULL.
>> Since I was changing something nearby, I guess I couldn't resist. I
>> can leave it in, if people prefer. It doesn't cause any harm, other
>> than annoying me.
>>
>
> As is is fine by me. Your explanation makes sense. I mostly wanted to
> make sure it was reasoned out rather than an accidental drop, but now
> that you point it out, it does look impossible for this to be NULL.
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Burgener <dburgener@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Petr Lautrbach <lautrbach@xxxxxxxxxx>
Petr
