On 12/13/2018 09:05 AM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > kzalloc() return should be checked. On dummy_alloc() failing > in kzalloc() NULL should be returned. > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <[email protected]> > --- > > Problem was located with an experimental coccinelle script > > V2: returning NULL is ok but not without cleanup - thanks to > Petr Mladek <[email protected]> for catching this. > > Patch was compile tested with: x86_64_defconfig + FTRACE=y > FUNCTION_TRACER=y, EXPERT=y, LATENCYTOP=y, SAMPLES=y, SAMPLE_LIVEPATCH=y > (with a number of unrelated sparse warnings on symbols not being static) > > Patch is against 4.20-rc6 (localversion-next is next-20181213) > > samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c > b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c > index 4c54b25..4aa8a88 100644 > --- a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c > +++ b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c > @@ -118,6 +118,10 @@ noinline struct dummy *dummy_alloc(void) > > /* Oops, forgot to save leak! */ > leak = kzalloc(sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!leak) { > + kfree(d); > + return NULL; > + } > > pr_info("%s: dummy @ %p, expires @ %lx\n", > __func__, d, d->jiffies_expire); >
Hi Nicholas, Thanks for finding and fixing these up... can we either squash these two patches into a single commit or give them unique subject lines? Code looks good (including Petr's suggested fix) otherwise. -- Joe
