[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1511181119130.1460@namei.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:21:01 +1100 (AEDT)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Safford <safford@...ibm.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
"open list:KEYS-ENCRYPTED" <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KEYS-ENCRYPTED" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER"
<tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> }
> break;
> + case Opt_policydigest:
> + if (!tpm2 ||
> + strlen(args[0].from) != (2 * opt->digest_len))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + kfree(opt->policydigest);
> + opt->policydigest = kzalloc(opt->digest_len,
> + GFP_KERNEL);
Is it correct to kfree opt->policydigest here before allocating it?
> + if (!opt->policydigest)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + res = hex2bin(opt->policydigest, args[0].from,
> + opt->digest_len);
> + if (res < 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
Do you need to kfree it here on error?
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
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