linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b7d64d4a-74dd-ee21-db7b-018070f1295f@web.de>
Date:   Mon, 6 Apr 2020 14:00:12 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Qiujun Huang <hqjagain@...il.com>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] powerpc/powernv: add NULL check after kzalloc in
 opal_add_one_export

>>> Here needs a NULL check as kzalloc may fail returning NULL.

I find this wording potentially confusing.

* Such function calls will usually succeed to return a pointer.

* The desired memory allocation can fail.

* Please choose an imperative wording for the change description.

>>> Issue was found by coccinelle.

Please omit this line after the addition for the reference to the SmPL script.

>>> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/null/kmerr.cocci
…
>>> Reviewed-by: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>

I wonder about this tag because of requested changes for the shown patch approach.

I recommend to add the tag “Fixes”.

>> Thanks for putting up with all the review comments :)

This seems to become challenging here.

>> But I think this should actually be two patches now.
…

> Get that, I'll separate them.

I wonder why it was not directly tried in this patch version.

>>> v3->v4:

I suggest to apply a shorter version numbering format (without an arrow).

Regards,
Markus