linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] gianfar: Less function calls in gfar_ethflow_to_filer

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: <1452854229.8586.48.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jan 2016 02:37:09 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@...escale.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] gianfar: Less function calls in
 gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() after error detection

On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 11:11 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> The kfree() function was called in one case by the
> gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() function during error handling
> even if a passed variable contained a null pointer.
> 
> * Return directly if a memory allocation failed at the beginning.
> 
> * Adjust jump targets according to the Linux coding style convention.
> 
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Is this really better?

Perhaps this particular static analysis isn't too useful.

Why not just allocate once and assign a second pointer?

	local_rqfpr = kmalloc_array(2 * (MAX_FILER_IDX + 1),
				    sizeof(unsigned int), GFP_KERNEL);
	if (!local_rqfpr)
		goto err;

	local_rqfcr = &local_rqfpr[MAX_FILER_IDX + 1];

Perhaps this would be better removing the ret variable
and using something like:

int gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table(...)
{
	...

	return 0;

err:
	kfree(local_rqfpt);
	return 1;
}