On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 07:02:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Colin King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Currently saved_vals is being allocated and there is no check for
> > failed allocation (which is more likely than normal when using
> > GFP_ATOMIC). Fix this by checking for a failed allocation and
> > propagating this error return down the the caller chain.
> >
> > Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1469841 ("Dereference null return value")
> >
> > Fixes: 88a1dbdec682 ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Add functions to save and restore pinctrl context")
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> > index 9c3c00515aa0..0905ee002041 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> > @@ -1588,8 +1588,11 @@ static int pcs_save_context(struct pcs_device *pcs)
> >
> > mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE;
> >
> > - if (!pcs->saved_vals)
> > + if (!pcs->saved_vals) {
> > pcs->saved_vals = devm_kzalloc(pcs->dev, pcs->size, GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> > + if (!pcs->saved_vals)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
>
> Wouldn't make sense to move it out of the first condition?
>
> Something like
>
> if (!foo)
> foo = ...malloc(...);
> if (!foo)
> return ...
No, checking for NULL immediately after the allocation is more obvious
and easier to parse.
Johan
--
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
