[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151002133911.GP7289@mwanda>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:39:11 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Chandra S Gorentla <csgorentla@...il.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rachel.kim@...el.com,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, chris.park@...el.com,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, johnny.kim@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drivers: staging: wilc1000: Check for errors before
kfree
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 06:47:35PM +0530, Chandra S Gorentla wrote:
> During the clean-up of the function, it is need to check if
> errors occurred, not the memory pointer.
>
The bug here is that we have a use after free on the success path. It
should have been mentioned in the changelog.
Anyway, this patch is buggy. If result == -EFAULT then it will crash.
Also this patch is really ugly. There is someone who is going to send a
correct fix (just add a return 0).
This driver usese "do everything" style error handling. It is a bug
prone anti-pattern because doing everything is more complicated than
doing one thing. You can easily see it is bug prone, because it made
you introduce a bug, right?
Instead the error handling should look like this:
return 0;
err_free_msg:
kfree(pstrMessage);
return ret;
There are no error paths where we need to free "pstrMessage->pvBuffer"
but if we were to add one it would look like this:
return 0;
err_pvbuffer:
kfree(pstrMessage->pvBuffer);
err_msg:
kfree(pstrMessage);
return ret;
This is a minimal, uncomplicated, no indenting, no if statement way of
unwinding.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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