netdev - Re: [PATCH v3] ax25: use GFP_KERNEL in ax25_dev_device

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: <648a6e70fdfaa94ee678abda210860287ad09bc3.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:19:42 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Lafreniere <pjlafren@....edu>, linux-hams@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ax25: use GFP_KERNEL in ax25_dev_device_up()

Hello,

On Wed, 2022-06-15 at 18:09 -0400, Peter Lafreniere wrote:
> ax25_dev_device_up() is only called during device setup, which is
> done in user context. In addition, ax25_dev_device_up()
> unconditionally calls ax25_register_dev_sysctl(), which already
> allocates with GFP_KERNEL.
> 
> Since it is allowed to sleep in this function, here we change
> ax25_dev_device_up() to use GFP_KERNEL to reduce unnecessary
> out-of-memory errors.
> 
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Lafreniere <pjlafren@....edu>
> ---
> v2 -> v3:
>  - Rebased for clean application to net-next
> 
> v1 -> v2:
>  - Renamed patch from "ax25: use GFP_KERNEL over GFP_ATOMIC where possible"
>    (Is that okay?)
>  - Removed invalid changes to ax25_rt_add()
> 
>  net/ax25/ax25_dev.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ax25/ax25_dev.c b/net/ax25/ax25_dev.c
> index ab88b6ac5401..2093f94f6852 100644
> --- a/net/ax25/ax25_dev.c
> +++ b/net/ax25/ax25_dev.c
> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ void ax25_dev_device_up(struct net_device *dev)
>  {
>  	ax25_dev *ax25_dev;
>  
> -	if ((ax25_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*ax25_dev), GFP_ATOMIC)) == NULL) {
> +	if ((ax25_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*ax25_dev), GFP_KERNEL)) == NULL) {
>  		printk(KERN_ERR "AX.25: ax25_dev_device_up - out of memory\n");
>  		return;
>  	}

Since you are touching this line, please move the assignment in a
separate statement:

	ax25_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*ax25_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
	if (!ax25_dev) {

so that we get rid of this obsolete codying style.

Thanks!

Paolo