linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: keystone: sci-clk: use devm_kmemdup_array() once more in ti_sci_scan_clocks_from

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]

Message-ID: <aQTLHlv2_V9Pgjk3@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 16:43:42 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: keystone: sci-clk: use devm_kmemdup_array() once
 more in ti_sci_scan_clocks_from_fw()

On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 03:33:24PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> * Reuse existing functionality from devm_kmemdup_array()
>   instead of keeping duplicate source code.
> 
> * Prevent a null pointer dereference.
> 
> 
> The source code was transformed by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Fixes: 3c13933c60338ce6fb2369bd0e93f91e52ddc17d ("clk: keystone: sci-clk: add support for dynamically probing clocks")

Wrong format of Fixes tag, please keep the SHA at bare minumum.

...

>  		if (num_clks == max_clks) {
> -			tmp_clks = devm_kmalloc_array(dev, max_clks + 64,
> -						      sizeof(sci_clk),
> -						      GFP_KERNEL);
> -			memcpy(tmp_clks, clks, max_clks * sizeof(sci_clk));
> +			tmp_clks = devm_kmemdup_array(dev, clks, max_clks + 64,
> +						      sizeof(sci_clk), GFP_KERNEL);
>  			if (max_clks)
>  				devm_kfree(dev, clks);

> +			if (!tmp_clks)
> +				return -ENOMEM;

You haven't read the code, right?
This now will work differently. Would it be acceptable?

>  			max_clks += 64;
>  			clks = tmp_clks;
>  		}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko