Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 May 2024 16:21:04 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: Add a null pointer check for the serial_test_tp_attach_query | From | Kunwu Chan <> |
| |
Thanks all for your reply.
On 2024/5/3 23:47, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 4/24/24 4:04 AM, Kunwu Chan wrote: >> There is a 'malloc' call, which can be unsuccessful. >> Add the malloc failure checking to avoid possible null >> dereference. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <chentao@kylinos.cn> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tp_attach_query.c | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tp_attach_query.c >> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tp_attach_query.c >> index 655d69f0ff0b..302b25408a53 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tp_attach_query.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tp_attach_query.c >> @@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ void serial_test_tp_attach_query(void) >> attr.wakeup_events = 1; >> query = malloc(sizeof(*query) + sizeof(__u32) * num_progs); >> + if (CHECK(!query, "malloc()", "error:%s\n", strerror(errno))) > > Series looks reasonable, small nit on CHECK() : Lets use ASSERT*() > macros given they are > preferred over the latter : > > if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(buf, "malloc"))
Thanks, I'll update it in v2:
1: Use ASSERT_OK_PTR instead of CHECK
2: Add a suggested-by tag for you
> >> + return; >> + >> for (i = 0; i < num_progs; i++) { >> err = bpf_prog_test_load(file, BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT, >> &obj[i], >> &prog_fd[i]); >> >
| |