linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/9] gpio: mockup: use the generic 'gpio-line-names' property

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:   Mon, 28 Sep 2020 12:11:03 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] gpio: mockup: use the generic 'gpio-line-names' property

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:45 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 6:41 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 01:40:10PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 11:03 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 01:38:41PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

> > > > > +             kfree_strarray(line_names, line_names ? ngpio : 0);
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you may check for NULL pointer in the kfree_strarray() and drop ternary
> > > > here?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I did in the previous series and you told me to not to. :)
> >
> > Hmm... What was my argument? What was wrong with me? free() should be NULL-aware.
>
> Well, it is - your just need to make sure ngpio is 0 too. :)

Do you really need that? If you have NULL as a first parameter, the
second one can be anything.

> I'll revert back to having the NULL check.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko