2017-04-24 08:22:20

by Pan Bian

Subject: [PATCH 1/1] power: Fix unchecked return value of devm_kzalloc

Function devm_kzalloc() will return a NULL pointer. However, in function
isp1704_charger_probe(), the return value of devm_kzalloc() is directly
used without validation. This may result in a bad memory access bug.

Signed-off-by: Pan Bian <[email protected]>
---
drivers/power/supply/isp1704_charger.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/isp1704_charger.c b/drivers/power/supply/isp1704_charger.c
index 4cd6899..95af5f3 100644
--- a/drivers/power/supply/isp1704_charger.c
+++ b/drivers/power/supply/isp1704_charger.c
@@ -418,6 +418,10 @@ static int isp1704_charger_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)

pdata = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
sizeof(struct isp1704_charger_data), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!pdata) {
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto fail0;
+ }
pdata->enable_gpio = gpio;

dev_info(&pdev->dev, "init gpio %d\n", pdata->enable_gpio);
--
1.9.1

2017-04-25 10:50:13

by Pali Rohár

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] power: Fix unchecked return value of devm_kzalloc

On Monday 24 April 2017 16:22:08 Pan Bian wrote:
> Function devm_kzalloc() will return a NULL pointer. However, in function
> isp1704_charger_probe(), the return value of devm_kzalloc() is directly
> used without validation. This may result in a bad memory access bug.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pan Bian <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/power/supply/isp1704_charger.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/isp1704_charger.c b/drivers/power/supply/isp1704_charger.c
> index 4cd6899..95af5f3 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/supply/isp1704_charger.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/isp1704_charger.c
> @@ -418,6 +418,10 @@ static int isp1704_charger_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> pdata = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
> sizeof(struct isp1704_charger_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!pdata) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto fail0;
> + }
> pdata->enable_gpio = gpio;
>
> dev_info(&pdev->dev, "init gpio %d\n", pdata->enable_gpio);

Looks good now. Reviewed-by: Pali Rohár <[email protected]>

--
Pali Rohár
[email protected]