lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: check memory allocation failure
Date
> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] On Behalf
> Of Christophe JAILLET
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 10:13 AM
> To: Waskiewicz Jr, Peter <peter.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com>; Kirsher, Jeffrey T
> <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org; intel-wired-
> lan@lists.osuosl.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> 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@wanadoo.fr>
> >> ---
> >> 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@intel.com

> > -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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-14 04:25    [W:0.078 / U:12.848 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site