netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] ieee802154: Use kmemdup instead of duplicating it in ca8210_test_int_driver

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <488f54b7-cfe2-f64b-168e-11f79d4d4e96@datenfreihafen.org>
Date:   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:13:57 +0200
From:   Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>
To:     YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        h.morris@...coda.com, alex.aring@...il.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ieee802154: Use kmemdup instead of duplicating
 it in ca8210_test_int_driver_write

Hello.

On 08/09/2018 08:44 AM, YueHaibing wrote:
> Replace calls to kmalloc followed by a memcpy with a direct call to
> kmemdup.
> 
> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>

Is Yue your forname and Haibing your surname? In that case having it
written as

Yue Haibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>

in the from line as well as in the SOB would be better.

> ---
>  drivers/net/ieee802154/ca8210.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ieee802154/ca8210.c b/drivers/net/ieee802154/ca8210.c
> index 58299fb..e21279d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ieee802154/ca8210.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ieee802154/ca8210.c
> @@ -634,10 +634,9 @@ static int ca8210_test_int_driver_write(
>  	for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
>  		dev_dbg(&priv->spi->dev, "%#03x\n", buf[i]);
>  
> -	fifo_buffer = kmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	fifo_buffer = kmemdup(buf, len, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!fifo_buffer)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
> -	memcpy(fifo_buffer, buf, len);
>  	kfifo_in(&test->up_fifo, &fifo_buffer, 4);
>  	wake_up_interruptible(&priv->test.readq);

Is this some kernel tree wide change you are submitting patches for or
only for the ca8210 driver? Is there any specific problem you see with
the kmalloc and memcpy code here? To me it looks fine.

The reason I ask is to understand if this is bug fix or a cleanup.

Harry, if you are ok with this one let me know with an Acked-By

regards
Stefan Schmidt