netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/4][MAC80211]: Fix GFP_KERNEL allocation under read lock.

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:	Tue, 06 May 2008 23:12:00 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Ingo Oeser <netdev@...eo.de>
Cc:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4][MAC80211]: Fix GFP_KERNEL allocation under read
	lock.


> What about doing both allocations in succession to local variables,
> share the failure path if an error occours an kfree them unconditionally 
> like this?
> 
> new_node = kmalloc(sizeof(struct mpath_node), GFP_KERNEL);
> new_mpath = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mesh_path), GFP_KERNEL);

If the system is under enough pressure to fail the first allocation, do
we really want to try another one just to free things again right away?
I'm with Pavel here, let's rather clean up the failure code path.

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)