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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 04:23:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@...sung.com> To: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com> Cc: Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, "roland@...estorage.com" <roland@...estorage.com>, Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>, Moni Shoua <monis@...lanox.com>, "jackm@....mellanox.co.il" <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>, Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>, "eranbe@...lanox.com" <eranbe@...lanox.com>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, PANKAJ MISHRA <pankaj.m@...sung.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] infiniband: Remove redundant NULL check before kfree Hello, >> + for (i = 0; i < dev->caps.num_ports; i++) >> + kfree(dm[i]); >> goto out; >> } >> } >> -- >> 1.7.9.5 >> > >If you are going to change this, you might as well make it 100% correct: > >i—-; >while (i >= 0) > kfree(dm[i]); > >Then you don’t have to worry about whether kfree works on NULL, every item you free will be guaranteed to be non-NULL. Thanks for suggestion :) Sent new patch with described changes, I was thinking one more thing. In below code :- if (!ibdev->sriov.is_going_down) queue_work(ibdev->sriov.demux[i].ud_wq, &dm[i]->work); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ibdev->sriov.going_down_lock, flags); } out: kfree(dm); return; dm is freed after queue_work, is it correct to free dm when other dm[i] are allocated ? i did not get it. Thanks Maninder ------------
Powered by blists - more mailing lists