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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <666f8502-86dd-b000-92d2-ec3fd90e332d@microchip.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 13:48:48 +0000 From: <Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com> To: <conor@...nel.org>, <tanghui20@...wei.com> CC: <mturquette@...libre.com>, <sboyd@...nel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yusongping@...wei.com>, <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: microchip: check for null return of devm_kzalloc() On 19.11.2022 12:43, Conor Dooley wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 01:48:58PM +0800, Hui Tang wrote: >> Because of the possilble failure of devm_kzalloc(), name might be NULL and >> will cause null pointer derefrence later. > > In theory, yeah? > > (note to self, s/refrence/reference/, s/possilble/possible) Applied to clk-microchip-fixes with these adjustments, thanks! > >> Therefore, it might be better to check it and directly return -ENOMEM. > > I agree with your use of might here. If the allocations do fail, we > likely aren't getting the system off the ground anyway - but there is > no harm in checking. > > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com> > > @Claudiu, supposedly I can push to the at91 repo now so I will try to do > that. > > Thanks, > Conor. > >> >> Fixes: d39fb172760e ("clk: microchip: add PolarFire SoC fabric clock support") >> Signed-off-by: Hui Tang <tanghui20@...wei.com> >> --- >> drivers/clk/microchip/clk-mpfs-ccc.c | 6 ++++++ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/microchip/clk-mpfs-ccc.c b/drivers/clk/microchip/clk-mpfs-ccc.c >> index 7be028dced63..32aae880a14f 100644 >> --- a/drivers/clk/microchip/clk-mpfs-ccc.c >> +++ b/drivers/clk/microchip/clk-mpfs-ccc.c >> @@ -166,6 +166,9 @@ static int mpfs_ccc_register_outputs(struct device *dev, struct mpfs_ccc_out_hw_ >> struct mpfs_ccc_out_hw_clock *out_hw = &out_hws[i]; >> char *name = devm_kzalloc(dev, 23, GFP_KERNEL); >> >> + if (!name) >> + return -ENOMEM; >> + >> snprintf(name, 23, "%s_out%u", parent->name, i); >> out_hw->divider.hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_HW(name, &parent->hw, &clk_divider_ops, 0); >> out_hw->divider.reg = data->pll_base[i / MPFS_CCC_OUTPUTS_PER_PLL] + >> @@ -200,6 +203,9 @@ static int mpfs_ccc_register_plls(struct device *dev, struct mpfs_ccc_pll_hw_clo >> struct mpfs_ccc_pll_hw_clock *pll_hw = &pll_hws[i]; >> char *name = devm_kzalloc(dev, 18, GFP_KERNEL); >> >> + if (!name) >> + return -ENOMEM; >> + >> pll_hw->base = data->pll_base[i]; >> snprintf(name, 18, "ccc%s_pll%u", strchrnul(dev->of_node->full_name, '@'), i); >> pll_hw->name = (const char *)name; >> -- >> 2.17.1 >>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists