[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BYAPR18MB26301A09FB55C44949AD8E30A01B0@BYAPR18MB2630.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 01:56:44 +0000
From: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@...vell.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC: Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>,
Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@...vell.com>,
Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: check for null return from skb_copy
Hi Dan,
> > > > if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ra)) {
> > > > skb_uap = skb_copy(skb, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > > > + if (!skb_uap)
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > >
> > > I think we would want to free dev_kfree_skb_any(skb) before returning.
> > I think if the pointer is NULL, no need to free it;
>
> You're misreading skb vs skb_uap. "skb_uap" is NULL but "skb" is non-NULL
> and I'm pretty sure we should free it.
Oh, right. I missed it; Yes you are correct.
Regards,
Ganapathi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists