linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH V2 5/8] irqchip/gic: Return an error if GIC initialisation fails

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: <CACRpkdaw+DM5ddi27UpJEg-+3A3ffS7k_Qnm4i-w2rLhpxp+8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:26:02 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 5/8] irqchip/gic: Return an error if GIC
 initialisation fails

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com> wrote:

> If the GIC initialisation fails, then currently we do not return an error
> or clean-up afterwards. Although for root controllers, this failure may be
> fatal anyway, for secondary controllers, it may not be fatal and so return
> an error on failure and clean-up.
>
> Also for non-banked GIC controllers, make sure that we free any memory
> allocated if we fail to initialise the IRQ domain.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
(...)

Almost perfect but...

> +err:
> +       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GIC_NON_BANKED) && percpu_offset) {
> +               free_percpu(gic->dist_base.percpu_base);
> +               free_percpu(gic->cpu_base.percpu_base);

What if the first map worked but not the second?

Should it be:

if (gic->dist_base.percpu_base)
   free_percpu(gic->dist_base.percpu_base);
if (gic->cpu_base.percpu_base)
   free_percpu(gic->cpu_base.percpu_base);

?

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/