[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150302132950.GC17521@pd.tnic>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:29:50 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>
Cc: x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] microcode loader updates
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 02:03:36PM +0100, Quentin Casasnovas wrote:
> So at the last loop iteration for j == i, we'll do kfree(saved_ptr[j])
> which AFAICT hasn't been initialized yet. Using a kcalloc() your first
> allocation for saved_ptr should just work since the memory will be cleared
> and kfree(NULL) doesn't do anything.
You're correct, but(!)...
Practically, this is not a problem because @mc_saved_src being handed
down to save_microcode() is at both call sites initialized up to
mc_saved_count elements and the loop in save_microcode() only inspects
this far.
So actually, this test is not really needed:
if (!mc_saved_src[i]) {
ret = -EINVAL;
goto err;
}
AFAICT and if I'm not missing anything else, of course.
In any case, I'd like to keep this series cleanup-only (well, except
this one) and address your comments later. Don't worry, I haven't
forgotten them - I want to *not* fix everything in one go.
Agreed?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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