[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3e0c7008-417d-4549-ae0a-7f8d26522117@web.de>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:40:09 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Kunwu Chan <chentao@...inos.cn>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Borislav Petkov
<bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/xen: Add some null pointer checking to smp.c
> kasprintf() returns a pointer to dynamically allocated memory
> which can be NULL upon failure. Ensure the allocation was successful
> by checking the pointer validity.
…
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
> @@ -61,10 +61,14 @@ void xen_smp_intr_free(unsigned int cpu)
>
> int xen_smp_intr_init(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> - int rc;
> + int rc = 0;
I find the indication of a successful function execution sufficient by
the statement “return 0;” at the end.
How do you think about to omit such an extra variable initialisation?
> char *resched_name, *callfunc_name, *debug_name;
>
> resched_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "resched%d", cpu);
> + if (!resched_name) {
> + rc = -ENOMEM;
> + goto fail;
> + }
> per_cpu(xen_resched_irq, cpu).name = resched_name;
> rc = bind_ipi_to_irqhandler(XEN_RESCHEDULE_VECTOR,
> cpu,
You propose to apply the same error code in four if branches.
I suggest to avoid the specification of duplicate assignment statements
for this purpose.
How do you think about to use another label like “e_nomem”?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists