From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028EA36D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:40:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from was59-1-82-226-113-214.fbx.proxad.net ([82.226.113.214]
 helo=[192.168.0.10])
 by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128)
 (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <olivier.matz@6wind.com>)
 id 1X1WEa-0005js-Qu; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:42:43 +0200
Message-ID: <53B114C5.2050608@6wind.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:41:57 +0200
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, 
 "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
References: <1403867097-18848-1-git-send-email-pablox.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
 <53AD55BB.8090807@6wind.com>
 <E115CCD9D858EF4F90C690B0DCB4D8971A790399@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <53AD64D3.9000100@6wind.com>
 <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B02CF0DEA1@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B02CF0DEA1@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] string: fix potential seg fault on snprintf
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 07:40:18 -0000

Hello Bruce,

On 06/27/2014 06:36 PM, Richardson, Bruce wrote:
> Famous last words include "that could never happen!" :-)
> Since this is not a performance critical piece of code, it does not hurt to leave the Null-check in, and get the additional safety of checking for invalid inputs.

The "it does not hurt" should not be an argument to keep a patch.
If we follow your reasoning, we should also add tests of
RTE_LOG(..., NULL, ...), rte_eth_dev_*(NULL, ...), ...

In this particular case, giving a NULL argument is meaningless because
the semantic of the function is precisely to write something in the
buffer. Moreover, as I already said, this function is not called by the
user directly.

Regards,
Olivier