linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: use kzalloc directly in _rtw

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2026012000-parlor-blissful-dc5d@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 16:38:55 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Minu Jin <s9430939@...er.com>
Cc: linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: use kzalloc directly in _rtw_zmalloc

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 02:40:36PM +0900, Minu Jin wrote:
> Replace kmalloc + memset with kzalloc for simpler and cleaner code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Minu Jin <s9430939@...er.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/os_dep/osdep_service.c | 7 +------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/os_dep/osdep_service.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/os_dep/osdep_service.c
> index a00f9f0c85c5..be46132a533a 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/os_dep/osdep_service.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/os_dep/osdep_service.c
> @@ -24,12 +24,7 @@ void *_rtw_malloc(u32 sz)
>  
>  void *_rtw_zmalloc(u32 sz)
>  {
> -	void *pbuf = _rtw_malloc(sz);
> -
> -	if (pbuf)
> -		memset(pbuf, 0, sz);
> -
> -	return pbuf;
> +	return kzalloc(sz, in_interrupt() ? GFP_ATOMIC : GFP_KERNEL);

So there is now no more calles to _rtw_malloc(), so why is it left in
here?  Oh wait, it's a wrapper for nothing?  Odd.

And the in_interrupt() check really doesn't work, that shouldn't be
used.

And finally, try to just replace the callers with the real call to
kzalloc, don't propagate this mess any more, the wrapper needs to be
removed entirely.

Same for probably all functions in this file, right?

thanks,

greg k-h