linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/powernv: add NULL check after kzalloc in opal_add_one

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: <CAOSf1CGLZ5H1cUsv6atZ7hNpQ+PDyyAjp6dzJjXMwC5XoUOVQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Apr 2020 19:01:41 +1000
From:   "Oliver O'Halloran" <oohall@...il.com>
To:     Qiujun Huang <hqjagain@...il.com>
Cc:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/powernv: add NULL check after kzalloc in opal_add_one_export

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 11:15 AM Qiujun Huang <hqjagain@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:06 AM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> wrote:
> >
> > > Here needs a NULL check.
> quite obvious?
> >
> > I find this change description questionable
> > (despite of a reasonable patch subject).
> >
> >
> > > Issue found by coccinelle.
> >
> > Would an information like “Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/null/kmerr.cocci”
> > be nicer?
> Yeah, but I think It was enough.

I didn't know we had that script in the kernel tree so I think it's a
good to mention that you used it. It might even help idiots like me
who write this sort of bug.

> > Will a patch change log be helpful here?
> I realized I should write some change log, and the change log was meaningless.
> So I left it blank.

The changelog is fine IMO. The point of a changelog is to tell a
reader doing git archeology why a change happened and this is
sufficent for that.

Reviewed-by: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>