[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110211142647.GA3920@ucw.cz>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:26:47 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
Cc: tadeusz.struk@...el.com, 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 2011-02-07 19:24:43, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> 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.
I don't think such optimalization is worth doing... original code is
as good but shorter and less complex...
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.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