netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/4] sfc: store PTP filters in a list

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: <85284c1a-d6ab-321b-570e-e9392979ab0d@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2023 16:08:27 +0000
From:   Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To:     Íñigo Huguet <ihuguet@...hat.com>,
        habetsm.xilinx@...il.com, richardcochran@...il.com
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Yalin Li <yalli@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/4] sfc: store PTP filters in a list

On 09/02/2023 10:43, Íñigo Huguet wrote:
> Instead of using a fixed sized array for the PTP filters, use a list.
> 
> This is not actually necessary at this point because the filters for
> multicast PTP are a fixed number, but this is a preparation for the
> following patches adding support for unicast PTP.
> 
> To avoid confusion with the new struct type efx_ptp_rxfilter, change the
> name of some local variables from rxfilter to spec, given they're of the
> type efx_filter_spec.
> 
> Reported-by: Yalin Li <yalli@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Íñigo Huguet <ihuguet@...hat.com>
...
> @@ -1311,48 +1320,55 @@ static void efx_ptp_init_filter(struct efx_nic *efx,
>  }
>  
>  static int efx_ptp_insert_filter(struct efx_nic *efx,
> -				 struct efx_filter_spec *rxfilter)
> +				 struct efx_filter_spec *spec)
>  {
>  	struct efx_ptp_data *ptp = efx->ptp_data;
> +	struct efx_ptp_rxfilter *rxfilter;
>  
> -	int rc = efx_filter_insert_filter(efx, rxfilter, true);
> +	int rc = efx_filter_insert_filter(efx, spec, true);
>  	if (rc < 0)
>  		return rc;
> -	ptp->rxfilters[ptp->rxfilters_count] = rc;
> -	ptp->rxfilters_count++;
> +
> +	rxfilter = kzalloc(sizeof(*rxfilter), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!rxfilter)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
Doesn't this leak the filter?
I'd be tempted to put the malloc first, that way in the failure
 ladder we'll only be doing a free, not a filter removal that
 may involve MCDI.

Apart from that, patch (and series) LGTM.
-ed