On 05/08/2017 04:46 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> 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?
In the core device driver model, yes, EPROBE_DEFER is treated
differently than other errors because it puts the driver on a retry queue.
EPROBE_DEFER is already a slow and exceptional path, and this is a
mock-up driver, so I am not sure what value there is in trying to
balance devm_kzalloc() with corresponding devm_kfree()...
--
Florian
--
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
