linux-kernel - Re: clk: rockchip: Checking a kmemdup() call in rockchip_clk_register

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]

Message-ID: <5801053.xxhhKtLrcJ@diego>
Date:   Sat, 12 Oct 2019 23:32:12 +0200
From:   Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Aditya Pakki <pakki001@....edu>,
        Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>, Navid Emamdoost <emamd001@....edu>,
        Stephen McCamant <smccaman@....edu>
Subject: Re: clk: rockchip: Checking a kmemdup() call in rockchip_clk_register_pll()

Hi Markus,

Am Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019, 15:55:44 CEST schrieb Markus Elfring:
> I tried another script for the semantic patch language out.
> This source code analysis approach points out that the implementation
> of the function “rockchip_clk_register_pll” contains also a call
> of the function “kmemdup”.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-pll.c?id=1c0cc5f1ae5ee5a6913704c0d75a6e99604ee30a#n913
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.4-rc2/source/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-pll.c#L913
> 
> * Do you find the usage of the format string “%s: could not allocate
>   rate table for %s\n” still appropriate at this place?

If there is an internal "no-memory" output from inside kmemdup now,
I guess the one in the clock driver would be a duplicate and could go away.

> * Is there a need to adjust the error handling here?

There is no need for additional error handling. Like if the rate-table
could not be duplicated, the clock will still report the correct clockrate
you can just not set a new rate.

And for a system it's always better to have the clock driver present
than for all device-drivers to fail probing. Especially as this start as
core clock driver, so there is no deferring possible.

Heiko