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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <20221207022000.44043-1-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
Date:   Wed,  7 Dec 2022 10:20:00 +0800
From:   Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@...as.ac.cn>
To:     jiri@...nulli.us
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,
        Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@...as.ac.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ice: Add check for kzalloc

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.

>>@@ -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?

Thanks,
Jiang