On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:46:53AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > If the argument, name is given with NULL, it would be probably > unexpected behavior. It should fail rather than register the > NULL-named parameter. > > If strdup() fails with out-of-memory, it should also fail > with -ENOMEM. > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > Changes in v2: > - Fix the condition of returning -ENOMEM > > lib/parameter.c | 8 +++++++- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/lib/parameter.c b/lib/parameter.c > index 71262c4..02a89bb 100644 > --- a/lib/parameter.c > +++ b/lib/parameter.c > @@ -130,6 +130,13 @@ static int __dev_add_param(struct param_d *param, struct device_d *dev, const ch > if (get_param_by_name(dev, name)) > return -EEXIST; > > + if (!name) > + return -EINVAL; Name is used already two lines above so barebox will already be crashed before this triggers. Besides, I normally don't like these checks. dereferencing NULL pointers means you get a backtrace showing you what went wrong. Returning an error means adding code which in this case makes dev_add_param just fail silently because the return value often is not checked. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox