[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v7ye20lt.ffs@tglx>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2024 12:52:30 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Remington Brasga <rbrasga@....edu>, Christian Heusel
<christian@...sel.eu>, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, "Ahmed S .
Darwish" <darwi@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, Remington Brasga
<rbrasga@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kcpuid: Fix potential dereferencing of null pointers
On Thu, Sep 26 2024 at 22:35, Remington Brasga wrote:
> if (!func->leafs) {
> func->leafs = malloc(sizeof(struct subleaf));
> - if (!func->leafs)
> + if (!func->leafs) {
> perror("malloc func leaf");
> + return false; // On malloc failure
Please get rid of these horrible and pointless tail comments.
Returning false here does not make sense. This simply should terminate
the program.
> + }
>
> func->nr = 1;
> } else {
> s = func->nr;
> func->leafs = realloc(func->leafs, (s + 1) * sizeof(*leaf));
> - if (!func->leafs)
> + if (!func->leafs) {
> perror("realloc f->leafs");
> + return false; // On realloc failure
> + }
>
> func->nr++;
> }
>
> + // Check for valid index
> + if (s >= func->nr) {
What's the point of this? s is guaranteed to be < func->nr, no?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists