Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:24:28 +0300 From: pluknet <pluknet@gmail.com> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag=2DErling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: Alexander Best <alexbestms@wwu.de>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org>, Nate Eldredge <nate@thatsmathematics.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] burncd: honour for envar SPEED Message-ID: <a31046fc0911101224i4550e3a4g2af73e5ff1828a3f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <86y6me2l54.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <permail-200911101617381e86ffa80000015a-a_best01@message-id.uni-muenster.de> <86y6me2l54.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/11/10 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no>: > Alexander Best <alexbestms@wwu.de> writes: >> you're right. hundreds of functions cause segfaults when arg or args >> are NULL. =A0either we add safety checks for all of them (massive >> overhead) or just leave them the way they are. > > The consensus in the C community is that adding such checks does more > harm than good, because a NULL pointer is usually a symptom of a bug > somewhere else in the application, and checking for a NULL pointer will > either hide that bug or trigger another error somewhere down the line, > possibly making the real bug harder to find, rather than easier. > And which is a way some well known OS' developers like to choose to fix sec.holes. No cookie. P.S. I apologize for flaming on this. > (next week's topic: the return value of malloc(0)...) > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no --=20 wbr, pluknet
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a31046fc0911101224i4550e3a4g2af73e5ff1828a3f>