linux-kernel - Re: packet: Improve exception handling in fanout

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, 1 Jan 2024 10:12:21 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski
 <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, LKML
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: packet: Improve exception handling in fanout_add()

On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 10:46:45 +0100
Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> wrote:

> > It is fine to call kfree with a possible NULL pointer:  
> …
> > 	 * If @object is NULL, no operation is performed.
> > 	 */
> > 	void kfree(const void *object)  
> 
> Such a function call triggers an input parameter validation
> with a corresponding immediate return, doesn't it?
> Do you find such data processing really helpful for the desired error/exception handling?

If you look at the existing coccinelle script there is even one
to remove unnecessary checks for null before calling kfree.