On 2018/3/28 14:31, Ji-Hun Kim wrote:
There are no null pointer checking on rd_info and td_info values which
are allocated by kzalloc. It has potential null pointer dereferencing
issues. Add return when allocation is failed.
Signed-off-by: Ji-Hun Kim <ji_hun.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/staging/vt6655/device_main.c | 12 ++++++++----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/device_main.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/device_main.c
index fbc4bc6..5d0ba94 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/device_main.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/device_main.c
@@ -539,7 +539,8 @@ static void device_init_rd0_ring(struct vnt_private *priv)
i ++, curr += sizeof(struct vnt_rx_desc)) {
desc = &priv->aRD0Ring[i];
desc->rd_info = kzalloc(sizeof(*desc->rd_info), GFP_KERNEL);
-
+ if (WARN_ON(!desc->rd_info))
+ return;
if (!device_alloc_rx_buf(priv, desc))
dev_err(&priv->pcid->dev, "can not alloc rx bufs\n");
@@ -563,7 +564,8 @@ static void device_init_rd1_ring(struct vnt_private *priv)
i ++, curr += sizeof(struct vnt_rx_desc)) {
desc = &priv->aRD1Ring[i];
desc->rd_info = kzalloc(sizeof(*desc->rd_info), GFP_KERNEL);
-
+ if (WARN_ON(!desc->rd_info))
+ return;
if (!device_alloc_rx_buf(priv, desc))
dev_err(&priv->pcid->dev, "can not alloc rx bufs\n");
@@ -621,7 +623,8 @@ static void device_init_td0_ring(struct vnt_private *priv)
i++, curr += sizeof(struct vnt_tx_desc)) {
desc = &priv->apTD0Rings[i];
desc->td_info = kzalloc(sizeof(*desc->td_info), GFP_KERNEL);
-
+ if (WARN_ON(!desc->td_info))
+ return;
desc->td_info->buf = priv->tx0_bufs + i * PKT_BUF_SZ;
desc->td_info->buf_dma = priv->tx_bufs_dma0 + i * PKT_BUF_SZ;
@@ -646,7 +649,8 @@ static void device_init_td1_ring(struct vnt_private *priv)
i++, curr += sizeof(struct vnt_tx_desc)) {
desc = &priv->apTD1Rings[i];
desc->td_info = kzalloc(sizeof(*desc->td_info), GFP_KERNEL);
-
+ if (WARN_ON(!desc->td_info))
+ return;
desc->td_info->buf = priv->tx1_bufs + i * PKT_BUF_SZ;
desc->td_info->buf_dma = priv->tx_bufs_dma1 + i * PKT_BUF_SZ;
I think the bugs you found are right.
But your patch is not correct, because it is dangerous to return directly.
I think you should return an error and then implement error handling
code for these functions.
Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
