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:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:44:18 +0900
From:   Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     "open list:COMMON CLK FRAMEWORK" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:SAMSUNG SOC CLOCK DRIVERS" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
        Aditya Pakki <pakki001@....edu>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
        Navid Emamdoost <emamd001@....edu>,
        Stephen McCamant <smccaman@....edu>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: clk: samsung: Checking a kmemdup() call in _samsung_clk_register_pll()

2019年10月16日(水) 19:55 Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>:
>
> >> * Is there a need to adjust the error handling here?
> >
> > No, there isn't much that can be done if we fail the allocation at
> > such an early stage.
>
> Can it matter to perform the setting “pll->rate_count” only according
> to a null pointer check for the variable “pll->rate_table”
> because of the function call “kmemdup”?

It would be a good practice indeed, but looking from the code,
pll->rate_table is checked elsewhere, not pll->rate_count.

Best regards,
Tomasz

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ