linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: mpt3sas: Fix memory allocation failure test in 'mpt3sas_base

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 07 Aug 2017 10:25:48 +0200
From:   walter harms <wharms@....de>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
CC:     sathya.prakash@...adcom.com, chaitra.basappa@...adcom.com,
        suganath-prabu.subramani@...adcom.com, jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...adcom.com,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: mpt3sas: Fix memory allocation failure test in
 'mpt3sas_base_attach()'



Am 07.08.2017 00:51, schrieb Christophe JAILLET:
> In the lines above this test, 8 'kzalloc' are performed, but only 7 results
> are tested.
> 
> Add the missing one (i.e. '!ioc->port_enable_cmds.reply').
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c b/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c
> index 1a5b6e40fb5c..8a44636ab0b5 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c
> @@ -5494,10 +5494,10 @@ mpt3sas_base_attach(struct MPT3SAS_ADAPTER *ioc)
>  	ioc->ctl_cmds.status = MPT3_CMD_NOT_USED;
>  	mutex_init(&ioc->ctl_cmds.mutex);
>  
> -	if (!ioc->base_cmds.reply || !ioc->transport_cmds.reply ||
> -	    !ioc->scsih_cmds.reply || !ioc->tm_cmds.reply ||
> -	    !ioc->config_cmds.reply || !ioc->ctl_cmds.reply ||
> -	    !ioc->ctl_cmds.sense) {
> +	if (!ioc->base_cmds.reply || !ioc->port_enable_cmds.reply ||
> +	    !ioc->transport_cmds.reply || !ioc->scsih_cmds.reply ||
> +	    !ioc->tm_cmds.reply || !ioc->config_cmds.reply ||
> +	    !ioc->ctl_cmds.reply || !ioc->ctl_cmds.sense) {
>  		r = -ENOMEM;
>  		goto out_free_resources;
>  	}


obviously it is better to follow the pattern "malloc() , check".
Even the programmer lost track.

Bonus points if you malloc the buffers in one step.

just my 2 cents,

re,
 wh