On 2024/5/10 19:20, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
On 5/10/24 2:58 PM, kunwu.chan@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Kunwu Chan <chentao@xxxxxxxxxx>
There is a 'malloc' call, which can be unsuccessful.
This patch will add the malloc failure checking
to avoid possible null dereference.
Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <chentao@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
index 89ff704e9dad..ecc3ddeceeeb 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
@@ -582,6 +582,11 @@ int compare_stack_ips(int smap_fd, int amap_fd, int stack_trace_len)
val_buf1 = malloc(stack_trace_len);
val_buf2 = malloc(stack_trace_len);
+ if (!val_buf1 || !val_buf2) {
+ err = -ENOMEM;
Return from here instead of going to out where free(val_buf*) is being called.
I think it's no harm. And Unify the processing at the end to achieve
uniform format.
+ goto out;
+ }
+
cur_key_p = NULL;
next_key_p = &key;
while (bpf_map_get_next_key(smap_fd, cur_key_p, next_key_p) == 0) {
@@ -1197,6 +1202,8 @@ static int dispatch_thread_send_subtests(int sock_fd, struct test_state *state)
int subtest_num = state->subtest_num;
state->subtest_states = malloc(subtest_num * sizeof(*subtest_state));
+ if (!state->subtest_states)
+ return -ENOMEM;
for (int i = 0; i < subtest_num; i++) {
subtest_state = &state->subtest_states[i];
--
Thanks,
Kunwu.Chan
