2022-02-22 12:00:18

by Xiaoke Wang

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915/selftests: check the return value of kstrdup()

From: Xiaoke Wang <[email protected]>

kstrdup() is a memory allocation function which can return NULL when
some internaly memory errors happen. It is better to check the return
value of it to prevent further wrong memory access.

Signed-off-by: Xiaoke Wang <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_selftest.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_selftest.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_selftest.c
index 484759c..1bcd065 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_selftest.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_selftest.c
@@ -246,6 +246,9 @@ static bool apply_subtest_filter(const char *caller, const char *name)
bool result = true;

filter = kstrdup(i915_selftest.filter, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!filter)
+ return false;
+
for (sep = filter; (tok = strsep(&sep, ","));) {
bool allow = true;
char *sl;
--


2022-03-03 11:31:17

by Matthew Auld

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/selftests: check the return value of kstrdup()

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 13:32, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Xiaoke Wang <[email protected]>
>
> kstrdup() is a memory allocation function which can return NULL when
> some internaly memory errors happen. It is better to check the return
> value of it to prevent further wrong memory access.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaoke Wang <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <[email protected]>

2022-03-03 12:19:29

by Matthew Auld

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/selftests: check the return value of kstrdup()

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 10:53, Matthew Auld
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 13:32, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Xiaoke Wang <[email protected]>
> >
> > kstrdup() is a memory allocation function which can return NULL when
> > some internaly memory errors happen. It is better to check the return
> > value of it to prevent further wrong memory access.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xiaoke Wang <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <[email protected]>

Scratch that. it looks like the for() already accounts for this, as
pointed out by Chris.