From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6866F5947
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:36:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
 by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2014 09:31:45 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,561,1400050800"; d="scan'208";a="535137306"
Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.157])
 by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2014 09:36:13 -0700
Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.28) by
 IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.123.3; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 17:36:12 +0100
Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.62]) by
 IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003;
 Fri, 27 Jun 2014 17:36:12 +0100
From: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, "De Lara Guarch, Pablo"
 <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] string: fix potential seg fault on snprintf
Thread-Index: AQHPkffZSBUcLHWCN0anEVr3ItQedJuEwZOAgAAMHACAAAXigIAAU5rA
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:36:12 +0000
Message-ID: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B02CF0DEA1@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <53AD64D3.9000100@6wind.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:36:53 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 5:34 AM
> To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] string: fix potential seg fault on snprin=
tf
>=20
> Hi Pablo,
>=20
> On 06/27/2014 02:13 PM, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
> > With last Thomas' patch, cmdline unit test does not pass due to this pr=
oblem
> (basically it tests this situation).
> > After test passed, by fixing this issue in several functions, I looked =
for other
> places where this happened.
>=20
> Indeed I missed the unit test, thanks.
>=20
> I think that testing the NULL case is not required. To me, it is like
> testing snprintf(NULL, ...)
>=20
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 inv=
alid inputs.