On 07/06/18 08:35, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 07:02:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Colin King <[email protected]> wrote: >>> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]> >>> >>> Currently saved_vals is being allocated and there is no check for >>> failed allocation (which is more likely than normal when using >>> GFP_ATOMIC). Fix this by checking for a failed allocation and >>> propagating this error return down the the caller chain. >>> >>> Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1469841 ("Dereference null return value") >>> >>> Fixes: 88a1dbdec682 ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Add functions to save and >>> restore pinctrl context") >>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 14 +++++++++++--- >>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c >>> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c >>> index 9c3c00515aa0..0905ee002041 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c >>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c >>> @@ -1588,8 +1588,11 @@ static int pcs_save_context(struct pcs_device *pcs) >>> >>> mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE; >>> >>> - if (!pcs->saved_vals) >>> + if (!pcs->saved_vals) { >>> pcs->saved_vals = devm_kzalloc(pcs->dev, pcs->size, >>> GFP_ATOMIC); >> >>> + if (!pcs->saved_vals) >>> + return -ENOMEM; >> >> Wouldn't make sense to move it out of the first condition? >> >> Something like >> >> if (!foo) >> foo = ...malloc(...); >> if (!foo) >> return ... > > No, checking for NULL immediately after the allocation is more obvious > and easier to parse.
+1 on that > > Johan >
