netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ice: Add check for kzalloc

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

Message-ID: <Y5CX+kYKoXeDppNT@nanopsycho>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2022 14:41:14 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@...as.ac.cn>
Cc:     jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ice: Add check for kzalloc

Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 03:20:00AM CET, jiasheng@...as.ac.cn wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 05:47:01PM +0800, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>As kzalloc may fail and return NULL pointer,
>>>it should be better to check the return value
>>>in order to avoid the NULL pointer dereference.
>> 
>> Okay, so? Be imperative to the code base, tell it what to do in your
>> patch description.
>
>OK, I will describe the changes by the patch in more details.

It is not about details, it is about "imperative mood".


>
>>>@@ -462,6 +462,17 @@ static struct tty_driver *ice_gnss_create_tty_driver(struct ice_pf *pf)
>>> 					       GFP_KERNEL);
>>> 		pf->gnss_serial[i] = NULL;
>>> 
>>>+		if (!pf->gnss_tty_port[i]) {
>>>+			for (j = 0; j < i; j++) {
>>>+				tty_port_destroy(pf->gnss_tty_port[j]);
>> 
>> You are destroying port which you didn't call (pf->gnss_tty_port[i])
>> for. Also, you are introducing a code duplication here with the error
>> path couple of lines below. Please convert this to goto-label error
>> path so the cleanup code is shared.
>
>I will convert this to goto-label in v2.
>But I have a question that the j is from 0 to (i - 1), and therefore only
>the initialized port will be destroyed.
>Is there any wrong?

You are right.

>
>Thanks,
>Jiang
>