linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mtd: Add simple read disturb test

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <551D58B2.2050302@nod.at>
Date:	Thu, 02 Apr 2015 16:56:50 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
CC:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: Add simple read disturb test

Am 02.04.2015 um 16:45 schrieb Fabio Estevam:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
> 
>> Why? Free()ing a NULL pointer is perfectly fine.
>> What did I miss? :)
> 
> If the first 'iobuf = kmalloc(mtd->erasesize, GFP_KERNEL);' fails then
> you jump to the out label where you call 5 kfree() and then return the
> error.
> 
> It would be much better just to return the error immediately in this
> case and add one label for each allocation error, so that it only
> kfree the previous successful allocations.

It is not *much* better. It is just a matter of taste.

Thanks,
//richard
--
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/