Ingo Oeser wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> regarding:
>
> [PATCH 1/4][MAC80211]: Fix GFP_KERNEL allocation under read lock
> [PATCH 2/4][MAC80211]: Fix not checked kmalloc() result
>
> Pavel Emelyanov schrieb:
>> The mesh_path_add() read-locks the pathtbl_resize_lock and calls
>> kmalloc with GFP_KERNEL mask.
>>
>> Fix it and move the endadd2 label lower. It should be _before_ the
>> if() beyond, but it makes no sense for it being there, so I move it
>> right after this if().
>
> What about doing both allocations in succession to local variables,
> share the failure path if an error occours an kfree them unconditionally
> like this?
I do not quite like doing so. Since this relies on fact that kfree bears
NULL pointers. But if we ever switch from kmalloc to kmem_cache_alloc,
this will result in an oops.
And as far as sharing the error paths are concerned, I make such thing
in the 4th patch in a more classical manner.
> new_node = kmalloc(sizeof(struct mpath_node), GFP_KERNEL);
> new_mpath = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mesh_path), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!new_node || !new_mpath) {
> kfree(new_mpath);
> kfree(new_node);
> atomic_dec(&sdata->u.sta.mpaths);
> err = -ENOMEM;
> goto endadd2;
> }
> ...
> read_lock(...);
> ...
>
> Rationale: Allocations are always likely to fail/succeed in close succession.
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Ingo Oeser
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
