> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf > Of Christophe JAILLET > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 10:13 AM > To: Waskiewicz Jr, Peter <peter.waskiewicz.jr@xxxxxxxxx>; Kirsher, Jeffrey T > <jeffrey.t.kirsher@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-wired- > lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: check memory allocation failure > > Le 28/08/2017 à 01:09, Waskiewicz Jr, Peter a écrit : > > On 8/27/17 2:42 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > >> Check memory allocation failures and return -ENOMEM in such cases, as > >> already done for other memory allocations in this function. > >> > >> This avoids NULL pointers dereference. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 2 ++ > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > >> This seems to be fine from a "it does not break in testing" perspective, so... Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@xxxxxxxxx > > -PJ > > > Hi, > > in fact, there is no leak because the only caller of 'igb_sw_init()' > (i.e. 'igb_probe()'), already frees these resources in case of error, > see [1] > > These resources are also freed in 'igb_remove()'. > > Best reagrds, > CJ > > [1]: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux- > next.git/tree/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c#n2775 But is PJ's comment saying that it is not really necessary? If so I tend to lean towards the don't touch it if it's not broken perspective. ��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�ޗ�����n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
