On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 05:49:20PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 04:13:32PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 04:02:28PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 12:14:56PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > + for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(kmalloc_caches[KMALLOC_NORMAL]);
> > > > idx++) {
> > > > + char *short_size, *cache_name;
> > > > + unsigned int cache_useroffset, cache_usersize;
> > > > + unsigned int size;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!kmalloc_caches[KMALLOC_NORMAL][idx])
> > > > + continue;
> > > > +
> > > > + size = kmalloc_caches[KMALLOC_NORMAL][idx]->object_size;
> > > > + if (!size)
> > > > + continue;
> > > > +
> > > > + short_size =
> > > > strchr(kmalloc_caches[KMALLOC_NORMAL][idx]->name, '-');
> > > > + if (WARN_ON(!short_size))
> > > > + goto fail;
> > > > +
> > > > + cache_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s-%s", name,
> > > > short_size + 1);
> > > > + if (WARN_ON(!cache_name))
> > > > + goto fail;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (useroffset >= size) {
> > > > + cache_useroffset = 0;
> > > > + cache_usersize = 0;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + cache_useroffset = useroffset;
> > > > + cache_usersize = min(size - cache_useroffset,
> > > > usersize);
> > > > + }
> > > > + (*b)[idx] = kmem_cache_create_usercopy(cache_name, size,
> > > > + align, flags, cache_useroffset,
> > > > + cache_usersize, ctor);
> > > > + kfree(cache_name);
> > > > + if (WARN_ON(!(*b)[idx]))
> > > > + goto fail;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return b;
> > > > +
> > > > +fail:
> > > > + for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(kmalloc_caches[KMALLOC_NORMAL]);
> > > > idx++) {
> > > > + if ((*b)[idx])
> > > > + kmem_cache_destroy((*b)[idx]);
> > >
> > > nit: I don't think it is necessary to guard this with a check for NULL.
> >
> > Isn't it? What if a kasprintf() fails halfway through the loop?
>
> He means that kmem_cache_destroy() already checks for NULL. Quite right!
>
> void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
> {
> int err = -EBUSY;
> bool rcu_set;
>
> if (unlikely(!s) || !kasan_check_byte(s))
> return;
Yes, thanks. That is what I was referring to.
