[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZW8a9BvNwO4yw_JX@codewreck.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 21:43:32 +0900
From: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
To: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru>
Cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...nel.org>,
Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
v9fs@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>,
lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: 9p: avoid freeing uninit memory in p9pdu_vreadf
Fedor Pchelkin wrote on Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 03:15:43PM +0300:
> As for the second initialization (the one located after kfree(*wnames) in
> error handling path - it was there all the time), I think it's better not
> to touch it. I've just moved kfree and null-assignment under
> 'if (*wnames)' statement.
Ah, I somehow missed this was just moved; that doesn't change anything
but doesn't hurt either, sure.
> The concern you mentioned is about any user that'd ignore the return code
> and try to use *wnames (so that the second initialization makes some
> sense). I can't see if there is any such user but, as said before, it's
> better not to touch that code.
Yes, it was here before, let's leave it in.
> > I don't mind the change even if there isn't but let's add a word in the
> > commit message.
>
> OK, will do in v3.
I've queued to -next as is (with the i initialized as Christian pointed
out), will update if you send a new one later.
Thanks,
--
Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists