linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ACPI: scan: Rearrange memory allocation in acpi_device

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: <09c19a25-bf03-28f0-48d2-d5eea1a800cb@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:34:30 +0100
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ACPI: scan: Rearrange memory allocation in
 acpi_device_add()

Hi,

On 1/18/21 4:32 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 04:16:16PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:37 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/14/21 7:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> When I have cases like this, where 2 mallocs are necessary I typically do it like this:
>>>
>>>         const char *bus_id;
>>>
>>>         ...
>>>
>>>         } else {
>>>                 acpi_device_bus_id = kzalloc(sizeof(*acpi_device_bus_id),
>>>                                              GFP_KERNEL);
>>>                 bus_id = kstrdup_const(acpi_device_hid(device), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>                 if (!acpi_device_bus_id || !bus_id) {
>>>                         kfree(acpi_device_bus_id);
> 
> 
>>>                         kfree(bus_id);
> 
> Just to be sure, shouldn't it be kfree_const() ?

Yes I beleive it should, my bad.

Regards,

Hans


> 
>>>                         result = -ENOMEM;
>>>                         goto err_unlock;
>>>                 }
>>>                 acpi_device_bus_id->bus_id = bus_id;
>>>                 list_add_tail(&acpi_device_bus_id->node, &acpi_bus_id_list);
>>>         }
>>>
>>>         ...
>>>
>>> So that there is only one if / 1 error-handling path for both mallocs.
>>> I personally find this a bit cleaner.
>