[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YSQ.7.76.1909192251210.24536@knanqh.ubzr>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:56:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
cc: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
jslaby@...e.com, textshell@...uujin.de, sam@...nborg.org,
daniel.vetter@...ll.ch, mpatocka@...hat.com, ghalat@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yangyingliang@...wei.com,
yuehaibing@...wei.com, zengweilin@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty:vt: Add check the return value of kzalloc to avoid
oops
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 05:18:15PM +0800, Xiaoming Ni wrote:
> > Using kzalloc() to allocate memory in function con_init(), but not
> > checking the return value, there is a risk of null pointer references
> > oops.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>
>
> We keep having this be "reported" :(
Something probably needs to be "communicated" about that.
> > vc_cons[currcons].d = vc = kzalloc(sizeof(struct vc_data), GFP_NOWAIT);
> > + if (unlikely(!vc)) {
> > + pr_warn("%s:failed to allocate memory for the %u vc\n",
> > + __func__, currcons);
> > + break;
> > + }
>
> At init, this really can not happen. Have you see it ever happen?
This is maybe too subtle a fact. The "communication" could be done with
some GFP_WONTFAIL flag, and have the allocator simply pannic() if it
ever fails.
Nicolas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists