On Mon, 8 May 2017, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-05-08 at 20:32 +0800, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 8 May 2017, David Laight wrote:
> >
> > > From: Christophe JAILLET
> > > > Sent: 06 May 2017 06:30
> > > > If 'devm_kzalloc' fails, a NULL pointer will be dereferenced.
> > > > Return -ENOMEM instead, as done for some other memory allocation just a
> > > > few lines above.
> > >
> > > ...
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/dsa_loop.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/dsa_loop.c
> > > > @@ -256,6 +256,9 @@ static int dsa_loop_drv_probe(struct mdio_device *mdiodev)
> > > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > >
> > > > ps = devm_kzalloc(&mdiodev->dev, sizeof(*ps), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!ps)
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > ps->netdev = dev_get_by_name(&init_net, pdata->netdev);
> > > > if (!ps->netdev)
> > > > return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > >
> > > On the face if it this code leaks like a sieve.
> >
> > I don't think so. The allocations (dsa_switch_alloc and devm_kzalloc) use
> > devm functions.
>
> It's at least wasteful.
>
> Each time -EPROBE_DEFER occurs, another set of calls to
> dsa_switch_alloc and dev_kzalloc also occurs.
>
> Perhaps it'd be better to do:
>
> if (ps->netdev) {
> devm_kfree(&devmdev->dev, ps);
> devm_kfree(&mdiodev->dev, ds);
> return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> }
Is EPROBE_DEFER handled differently than other kinds of errors?
julia
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
