linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] staging: dgnc: check if kzalloc fails in dgnc_tty

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.03.1504071735500.19037@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:37:49 +0300 (EEST)
From:	Giedrius Statkevičius 
	<giedrius.statkevicius@...il.com>
To:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
cc:	Giedrius Statkevičius 
	<giedrius.statkevicius@...il.com>, lidza.louina@...il.com,
	markh@...pro.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dan.carpenter@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] staging: dgnc: check if kzalloc fails in
 dgnc_tty_init()

On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 05:11:15PM +0300, Giedrius Statkevičius wrote:
> > If one of the allocations of memory for storing a channel information struct
> > fails then free all the successful allocations and return -ENOMEM that gets
> > propogated to the pci layer.  Also, remove a bogus skipping in the next part of
> > the initiation if a previous memory allocation failed because we won't execute
> > that if any of the allocations failed. Next, remove the misleading comment that
> > allocation could happen elsewhere. Finally, remove all (except in the ioctl
> > which can try to get information about a board that failed to probe) checks if
> > ->channels[foo] is NULL or not because probe failing if we can't allocate enough
> > memory means that this scenario isn't possible.
> 
> i think now it became too many changes for a single patch..
> 
> regards
> sudip

If I split this into two patches then they both would have to be applied and
Greg or someone else could miss that one patch depended on another and leave the
kernel in a partial state so I think it's best to keep it in one. Lets see what
other people have to say.

Su pagarba / Regards,
Giedrius