From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unnecessary pointer-NULL checks in pgp-pgsql.c |
Date: | 2015-02-03 15:30:01 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobLEbhP4z7N8vb939Oyyb8EWOKFWDL3o2hO3m40S4YwPg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Coverity is pointing out that we are doing pointer-NULL checks on
> things that cannot be NULL in decrypt_internal():
> out:
> - if (src)
> - mbuf_free(src);
> - if (ctx)
> - pgp_free(ctx);
> + Assert(ctx != NULL && src != NULL && dst != NULL);
> + mbuf_free(src);
> + pgp_free(ctx);
>
> if (err)
> {
> px_set_debug_handler(NULL);
> - if (dst)
> - mbuf_free(dst);
> + mbuf_free(dst);
>
> src, dst and ctx are created respectively from mbuf_create_from_data,
> mbuf_create and pgp_init which never return NULL and they are palloc'd
> all the time. I think that we could simplify things with the patch
> attached, note that I added an assertion for correctness but I don't
> really think that it is much necessary.
Yeah, I'd drop the assertion. Also, how about changing things around
slightly so that we lose the goto-label construct? There's only one
goto, and its only about 6 lines before the label, so we could just
flip the sense of the if-test and put the code that gets skipped
inside the if-block.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-02-03 15:39:01 | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-02-03 15:23:30 | Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE |