Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1732021 > unrolled thread

RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: check memory allocation failure

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: check memory allocation failure "Brown, Aaron F" <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> - 2017-09-14 04:30 +0200
    Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: check memory allocation failure "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter" <peter.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com> - 2017-09-14 16:50 +0200

#1732021 — RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: check memory allocation failure

> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] On Behalf
> Of Christophe JAILLET
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 10:13 AM
> To: Waskiewicz Jr, Peter <peter.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com>; Kirsher, Jeffrey T
> <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org; intel-wired-
> lan@lists.osuosl.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: check memory allocation failure
> 
> Le 28/08/2017 à 01:09, Waskiewicz Jr, Peter a écrit :
> > On 8/27/17 2:42 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> >> Check memory allocation failures and return -ENOMEM in such cases, as
> >> already done for other memory allocations in this function.
> >>
> >> This avoids NULL pointers dereference.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
> >> ---
> >>    drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 2 ++
> >>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>

This seems to be fine from a "it does not break in testing" perspective, so...

Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com

> > -PJ
> >
> Hi,
> 
> in fact, there is no leak because the only caller of 'igb_sw_init()'
> (i.e. 'igb_probe()'), already frees these resources in case of error,
> see [1]
> 
> These resources are also freed  in 'igb_remove()'.
> 
> Best reagrds,
> CJ
> 
> [1]:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-
> next.git/tree/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c#n2775

But is PJ's comment saying that it is not really necessary?  If so I tend to lean towards the don't touch it if it's not broken perspective.
 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1732325

On 9/13/17 7:24 PM, Brown, Aaron F wrote:
>> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] On Behalf
>> Of Christophe JAILLET
>> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 10:13 AM
>> To: Waskiewicz Jr, Peter <peter.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com>; Kirsher, Jeffrey T
>> <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
>> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org; intel-wired-
>> lan@lists.osuosl.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: check memory allocation failure
>>
>> Le 28/08/2017 à 01:09, Waskiewicz Jr, Peter a écrit :
>>> On 8/27/17 2:42 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>>>> Check memory allocation failures and return -ENOMEM in such cases, as
>>>> already done for other memory allocations in this function.
>>>>
>>>> This avoids NULL pointers dereference.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
>>>> ---
>>>>     drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 2 ++
>>>>     1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
> 
> This seems to be fine from a "it does not break in testing" perspective, so...
> 
> Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com
> 
>>> -PJ
>>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> in fact, there is no leak because the only caller of 'igb_sw_init()'
>> (i.e. 'igb_probe()'), already frees these resources in case of error,
>> see [1]
>>
>> These resources are also freed  in 'igb_remove()'.
>>
>> Best reagrds,
>> CJ
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-
>> next.git/tree/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c#n2775
> 
> But is PJ's comment saying that it is not really necessary?  If so I tend to lean towards the don't touch it if it's not broken perspective.

I guess I didn't respond after Christophe replied, sorry about that. 
The patch is good to me.  It's definitely catching an issue where we're 
not checking for a memory failure, then just follows the same 
de-allocation path on unwind.

If you want it:

Acked-by: PJ Waskiewicz <peter.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web