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;
Date:   Fri, 20 Sep 2019 08:04:26 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
Cc:     Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@huawei.com>, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi,
        jslaby@suse.com, textshell@uchuujin.de, sam@ravnborg.org,
        daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, mpatocka@redhat.com, ghalat@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yangyingliang@huawei.com,
        yuehaibing@huawei.com, zengweilin@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty:vt: Add check the return value of kzalloc to avoid
 oops
Message-ID: <20190920060426.GA473496@kroah.com>
References: <1568884695-56789-1-git-send-email-nixiaoming@huawei.com>
 <20190919092933.GA2684163@kroah.com>
 <nycvar.YSQ.7.76.1909192251210.24536@knanqh.ubzr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.YSQ.7.76.1909192251210.24536@knanqh.ubzr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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 <nixiaoming@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