On 2019/9/20 14:04, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:56:15PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 05:18:15PM +0800, Xiaoming Ni wrote:
>>>> Using kzalloc() to allocate memory in function con_init(), but not
>>>> checking the return value, there is a risk of null pointer references
>>>> oops.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaom...@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> We keep having this be "reported" :(
>>
>> Something probably needs to be "communicated" about that.
>
> I know, but it's also kind of fun to see what these "automated" checkers
> find, sometimes the resulting patches almost work properly :)
>
> This one is really close, I think if the likely/unlikely gets cleaned
> up, it is viable.
>
>>>> vc_cons[currcons].d = vc = kzalloc(sizeof(struct vc_data),
>>>> GFP_NOWAIT);
>>>> + if (unlikely(!vc)) {
>>>> + pr_warn("%s:failed to allocate memory for the %u vc\n",
>>>> + __func__, currcons);
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> At init, this really can not happen. Have you see it ever happen?
>>
>> This is maybe too subtle a fact. The "communication" could be done with
>> some GFP_WONTFAIL flag, and have the allocator simply pannic() if it
>> ever fails.
>
> That's a good idea to do as well.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
> .
>
Thank you for your advice.
@ Nicolas Pitre
Can I make a v2 patch based on your advice ?
Or you will submit a patch for "GFP_WONTFAIL" yourself ?
thanks
Xiaoming Ni
