[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1102071922220.27796@swampdragon.chaosbits.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:24:43 +0100 (CET)
From: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
To: tadeusz.struk@...el.com
cc: herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, aidan.o.mahony@...el.com,
gabriele.paoloni@...el.com, adrian.hoban@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfc4106, Intel, AES-NI: Don't leak memory in
rfc4106_set_hash_subkey().
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, tadeusz.struk@...el.com wrote:
> From:
> Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:41:11 +0000
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] rfc4106, Intel, AES-NI: Don't leak memory in rfc4106_set_hash_subkey().
>
> Hi Jesper,
> Thanks, but I think there is still a problem here. You don't want to kfree req_data
> when the kmalloc failed. I think it should look as follows.
> Are you ok with this?
>
Fine by me.
I was aware of the kfree(NULL) thing, but desided to leave it as is for
two reasons - 1) kfree(NULL) is harmless and this is an error path, so the
extra function call doesn't matter much. 2) I wanted to preserve
deallocations in the reverse order of the allocations. But sure, moving
that kfree is a tiny optimization of the error path, so I'm fine with it.
--
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Plain text mails only, please.
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists