From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 12:23:20 +0100
The kfree() function was called in one case by
the mmc_spi_probe() function during error handling
even if the passed variable contained a null pointer.
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
* Thus return directly after a call of the function “kmalloc” failed
at the beginning.
* Move an error code assignment into an if branch.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c
index b0cccef4cfbf..6e7d8e1e6f38 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c
@@ -1349,15 +1349,17 @@ static int mmc_spi_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
* NOTE if many systems use more than one MMC-over-SPI connector
* it'd save some memory to share this. That's evidently rare.
*/
- status = -ENOMEM;
ones = kmalloc(MMC_SPI_BLOCKSIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!ones)
- goto nomem;
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
memset(ones, 0xff, MMC_SPI_BLOCKSIZE);
mmc = mmc_alloc_host(sizeof(*host), &spi->dev);
- if (!mmc)
+ if (!mmc) {
+ status = -ENOMEM;
goto nomem;
+ }
mmc->ops = &mmc_spi_ops;
mmc->max_blk_size = MMC_SPI_BLOCKSIZE;
--
2.43.0
On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 12:50:50PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 12:23:20 +0100
>
> The kfree() function was called in one case by
> the mmc_spi_probe() function during error handling
> even if the passed variable contained a null pointer.
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> * Thus return directly after a call of the function “kmalloc” failed
> at the beginning.
>
> * Move an error code assignment into an if branch.
How is this one better?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
>> The kfree() function was called in one case by
>> the mmc_spi_probe() function during error handling
>> even if the passed variable contained a null pointer.
>> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>
>> * Thus return directly after a call of the function “kmalloc” failed
>> at the beginning.
>>
>> * Move an error code assignment into an if branch.
>
> How is this one better?
I suggest to avoid a bit of redundant data processing also at this source code place.
Regards,
Markus