Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] scsi: mpt3sas: Fix memory allocation failure test in 'mpt3sas_base_attach()' | From | Christophe JAILLET <> | Date | Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:45:35 +0200 |
| |
Le 07/08/2017 à 10:25, walter harms a écrit : > > Am 07.08.2017 00:51, schrieb Christophe JAILLET: >> In the lines above this test, 8 'kzalloc' are performed, but only 7 results >> are tested. >> >> Add the missing one (i.e. '!ioc->port_enable_cmds.reply'). >> >> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> >> --- >> drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c | 8 ++++---- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c b/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c >> index 1a5b6e40fb5c..8a44636ab0b5 100644 >> --- a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c >> @@ -5494,10 +5494,10 @@ mpt3sas_base_attach(struct MPT3SAS_ADAPTER *ioc) >> ioc->ctl_cmds.status = MPT3_CMD_NOT_USED; >> mutex_init(&ioc->ctl_cmds.mutex); >> >> - if (!ioc->base_cmds.reply || !ioc->transport_cmds.reply || >> - !ioc->scsih_cmds.reply || !ioc->tm_cmds.reply || >> - !ioc->config_cmds.reply || !ioc->ctl_cmds.reply || >> - !ioc->ctl_cmds.sense) { >> + if (!ioc->base_cmds.reply || !ioc->port_enable_cmds.reply || >> + !ioc->transport_cmds.reply || !ioc->scsih_cmds.reply || >> + !ioc->tm_cmds.reply || !ioc->config_cmds.reply || >> + !ioc->ctl_cmds.reply || !ioc->ctl_cmds.sense) { >> r = -ENOMEM; >> goto out_free_resources; >> } > > obviously it is better to follow the pattern "malloc() , check". Agreed, but it is also more verbose. Leavig it as-is, is IMHO, good enough.
> Even the programmer lost track. > > Bonus points if you malloc the buffers in one step. Most of the allocation are 'kzalloc(ioc->reply_sz, GFP_KERNEL);', so a kcalloc could be used instead. However, the 'kzalloc(SCSI_SENSE_BUFFERSIZE, GFP_KERNEL);' breaks this logic and allocating all at once would lead to spaghetti code for no reason.
Moreover, I don't have any idea how big can be 'ioc->reply_sz', even if I guess it should be small. So allocating all at once, could fail where several steps would work.
So I won't play for the bonus points :).
Best regards. CJ
> just my 2 cents, > > re, > wh > > >
| |