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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 12:08:50 +0100 From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> To: Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com> Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Ariel Almog <ariela@...lanox.com>, Aya Levin <ayal@...lanox.com>, Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 01/11] devlink: Add health buffer support Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 12:06:18PM CET, eranbe@...lanox.com wrote: > > >On 1/20/2019 12:03 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:59:10PM CET, eranbe@...lanox.com wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> +static void >>> +devlink_health_buffers_destroy(struct devlink_health_buffer **buffers_list, >>> + u64 size); >> >> Avoid fwd declarations. >> >> >>> + >>> +static struct devlink_health_buffer ** >>> +devlink_health_buffers_create(u64 size) >>> +{ >>> + struct devlink_health_buffer **buffers_list; >>> + u64 num_of_buffers = DEVLINK_HEALTH_SIZE_TO_BUFFERS(size); >>> + u64 i; >>> + >>> + buffers_list = kcalloc(num_of_buffers, >>> + sizeof(struct devlink_health_buffer *), >>> + GFP_KERNEL); >>> + if (!buffers_list) >>> + return NULL; >>> + >>> + for (i = 0; i < num_of_buffers; i++) { >>> + struct devlink_health_buffer *buffer; >>> + void *data; >>> + >>> + buffer = kzalloc(sizeof(*buffer), GFP_KERNEL); >>> + data = kzalloc(DEVLINK_HEALTH_BUFFER_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL); >>> + if (!buffer || !data) { >>> + kfree(buffer); >>> + kfree(data); >>> + goto buffers_cleanup; >>> + } >>> + buffers_list[i] = buffer; >>> + buffer->data = data; >>> + } >>> + devlink_health_buffers_reset(buffers_list, num_of_buffers); >>> + >>> + return buffers_list; >>> + >>> +buffers_cleanup: >>> + devlink_health_buffers_destroy(buffers_list, --i); >> >> Just do for-kfree here. >> >> >>> + kfree(buffers_list); >>> + return NULL; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static void >>> +devlink_health_buffers_destroy(struct devlink_health_buffer **buffers_list, >>> + u64 num_of_buffers) >>> +{ >>> + u64 i; >>> + >>> + for (i = 0; i < num_of_buffers; i++) { >>> + kfree(buffers_list[i]->data); >>> + kfree(buffers_list[i]); >>> + } >>> +} >>> + >> >> [...] >> > >Hi Jiri, >The series is merged. I can take the relevant comments as send as fix >with the rest of the series if you wish to. I haven't have time to review this due to travel. I think it was mistake to merge this as the buffer api is wrong in my opinion. I would vote for revert if possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists