On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 5:45 AM Petr Lautrbach <lautrbach@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
>
I plan on merging this series next week, unless someone objects.
Jim
