Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <798fbe60-52aa-4fb0-0cd3-e2c067bd6c04@gmail.com>
References: <CGME20180329072248epcas2p3d12617d41e964252998dd1d34f740a97@epcas2p3.samsung.com>
 <1522308157-26463-1-git-send-email-ji_hun.kim@samsung.com> <798fbe60-52aa-4fb0-0cd3-e2c067bd6c04@gmail.com>
From:   ji-hun Kim <jihuun.k@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Mar 2018 19:53:25 +0900
Message-ID: <CAC_4WJPH68DJm5ofYcGLqbF7wnQTvL7uzhkakaW9hUzk-ZhZFw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: vt6655: check for memory allocation failures
To:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
Cc:     Ji-Hun Kim <ji_hun.kim@samsung.com>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        forest@alittletooquiet.net, dartnorris@gmail.com,
        santhameena13@gmail.com, julia.lawall@lip6.fr, y.k.oh@samsung.com,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2018-03-29 17:00 GMT+09:00 Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> On 2018/3/29 15:22, Ji-Hun Kim wrote:
>>
>> There are no null pointer checking on rd_info and td_info values which
>> are allocated by kzalloc. It has potential null pointer dereferencing
>> issues. Add return when allocation is failed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ji-Hun Kim <ji_hun.kim@samsung.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Change: since v1:
>>
>> - Delete WARN_ON which can makes crashes on some machines.
>> - Instead of return directly, goto freeing function for freeing previously
>>    allocated memory in the for loop after kzalloc() failed.
>> - In the freeing function, if td_info and rd_info are not allocated, no
>>    needs to free.
>>
>>   drivers/staging/vt6655/device_main.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>   1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/device_main.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/device_main.c
>> index fbc4bc6..ecbba43 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/device_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/device_main.c
>> @@ -539,7 +539,8 @@ static void device_init_rd0_ring(struct vnt_private *priv)
>>              i ++, curr += sizeof(struct vnt_rx_desc)) {
>>                 desc = &priv->aRD0Ring[i];
>>                 desc->rd_info = kzalloc(sizeof(*desc->rd_info), GFP_KERNEL);
>> -
>> +               if (!desc->rd_info)
>> +                       goto error;
>>                 if (!device_alloc_rx_buf(priv, desc))
>>                         dev_err(&priv->pcid->dev, "can not alloc rx bufs\n");
>>   @@ -550,6 +551,10 @@ static void device_init_rd0_ring(struct vnt_private *priv)
>>         if (i > 0)
>>                 priv->aRD0Ring[i-1].next_desc = cpu_to_le32(priv->rd0_pool_dma);
>>         priv->pCurrRD[0] = &priv->aRD0Ring[0];
>> +
>> +       return;
>> +error:
>> +       device_free_rd0_ring(priv);
>>   }
>>
>
>
> I think you should return an error number here, because device_init_rd0_ring() is called by vnt_start().
> You should also implement error handling code in vnt_start(), and let vnt_start() returns an error number too.
> The same for device_init_rd1_ring(), device_init_td0_ring() and device_init_td1_ring().
>

Hi Jia-Ju, Thanks for the feedback. All right, those function looks
that needs returns
an error number. I will implement error handling code and send a patch
v3 tomorrow

Best regards,
Ji-Hun