Re: [PATCH v3] ssb: Fix potential NULL pointer dereference in ssb_device_uevent

[James Dutton]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 at 21:39, Michael Büsch <m@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri,  8 Mar 2024 00:19:28 +0300
> Rand Deeb <rand.sec96@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Defensive programming is typically applied when there's a potential risk,
>
> A NULL pointer dereference is Undefined Behavior.
> It can't get much worse in C.
>
> > If we adopt this
> > approach as a form of defensive programming, we'd find ourselves adding
> > similar conditions to numerous functions and parameters.
>
> Not at all.
> Your suggestion was about REMOVING a null pointer check.
> Not about adding one.
> I NAK-ed the REMOVAL of a null pointer check. Not the addition.
>

Hi,

This is an interesting discussion. Just to add my 2 cents.
If one does a NULL check after it has been previously dereferenced,
the compiler will totally remove the NULL check anyway, so although
the NULL check was in the source code, it will be absent from the
compiled code.
Re-arranging the NULL check to be before the dereference is fixing
that, but not necessarily in the way you expect.