On Mon 2011-02-07 19:24:43, Jesper Juhl wrote: > On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, tadeusz.struk@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: > > Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:41:11 +0000 > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] rfc4106, Intel, AES-NI: Don't leak memory in rfc4106_set_hash_subkey(). > > > > Hi Jesper, > > Thanks, but I think there is still a problem here. You don't want to kfree req_data > > when the kmalloc failed. I think it should look as follows. > > Are you ok with this? > > > Fine by me. > > I was aware of the kfree(NULL) thing, but desided to leave it as is for > two reasons - 1) kfree(NULL) is harmless and this is an error path, so the > extra function call doesn't matter much. 2) I wanted to preserve > deallocations in the reverse order of the allocations. But sure, moving > that kfree is a tiny optimization of the error path, so I'm fine with it. I don't think such optimalization is worth doing... original code is as good but shorter and less complex... -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
