Unnecessary pointer-NULL checks in pgp-pgsql.c

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas wrote:

I wrote:

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.

Good idea. This gives the patch attached then.
Regards,
--
Michael

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:

Robert Haas wrote:

I wrote:

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.

Good idea. This gives the patch attached then.

Committed.

(BTW, why do you not leave a blank line between quoted text and your responses?)

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:

(BTW, why do you not leave a blank line between quoted text and your responses?)

+1. That vertical space is really helpful, at least to me.

Thanks,

Stephen

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:31 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:

(BTW, why do you not leave a blank line between quoted text and your responses?)

+1. That vertical space is really helpful, at least to me.

Will do if people here are better with that. I just did it to keep the
messages shorter.
--
Michael

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers