On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2019-01-21 13:14:38, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > > Do not dereference pointers to the shadow variables when either
> > > klp_shadow_alloc() or klp_shadow_get() fail.
> >
> > I may misunder
On Mon 2019-01-21 17:40:12, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 05:17:18PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Do not dereference pointers to the shadow variables when either
> > klp_shadow_alloc() or klp_shadow_get() fail.
> >
> > There is no need to check the other locations explicitly. The
On Mon 2019-01-21 13:14:38, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> > Do not dereference pointers to the shadow variables when either
> > klp_shadow_alloc() or klp_shadow_get() fail.
>
> I may misunderstand the patch, so bear with me, please. Is this because o
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 05:17:18PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Do not dereference pointers to the shadow variables when either
> klp_shadow_alloc() or klp_shadow_get() fail.
>
> There is no need to check the other locations explicitly. The test
> would fail if any allocation fails. And the existin
Hi,
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Do not dereference pointers to the shadow variables when either
> klp_shadow_alloc() or klp_shadow_get() fail.
I may misunderstand the patch, so bear with me, please. Is this because of
a possible null pointer dereference? If yes, shouldn't this say
Do not dereference pointers to the shadow variables when either
klp_shadow_alloc() or klp_shadow_get() fail.
There is no need to check the other locations explicitly. The test
would fail if any allocation fails. And the existing messages, printed
during the test, provide enough information to debu
6 matches
Mail list logo