Hi Sascha,
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:06:22 +0100
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
What a coincidence!
Actually, I was writing the following patch yesterday:
> Author: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed Jan 28 22:07:59 2015 +0900
>
> param: do not search NULL-named parameter
>
> If the argument name is given with NULL, it is passed to strcmp()
> resulting in NULL-pointer access. It would be safer to return NULL
> (which means "Not found") in such a case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/lib/parameter.c b/lib/parameter.c
> index 865ad9f..c37d877 100644
> --- a/lib/parameter.c
> +++ b/lib/parameter.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,9 @@ struct param_d *get_param_by_name(struct device_d *dev, const char *name)
> {
> struct param_d *p;
>
> + if (!name)
> + return NULL;
> +
> list_for_each_entry(p, &dev->parameters, list) {
> if (!strcmp(p->name, name))
> return p;
Do you mean, you do not like such a patch?
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
