Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@redhat.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@redhat.com>,
        Gaurav Singh <gaurav1086@gmail.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
        "open list\:XDP \(eXpress Data Path\)" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list\:XDP \(eXpress Data Path\)" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xdp_rxq_info_user: Replace malloc/memset w/calloc
In-Reply-To: <427be84b1154978342ef861f1f4634c914d03a94.camel@perches.com>
References: <20200611150221.15665-1-gaurav1086@gmail.com> <20200612003640.16248-1-gaurav1086@gmail.com> <20200612084244.4ab4f6c6@carbon> <427be84b1154978342ef861f1f4634c914d03a94.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:06:50 +0200
Message-ID: <8736705vz9.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> writes:

> On Fri, 2020-06-12 at 08:42 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 20:36:40 -0400
>> Gaurav Singh <gaurav1086@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Replace malloc/memset with calloc
>> > 
>> > Fixes: 0fca931a6f21 ("samples/bpf: program demonstrating access to xdp_rxq_info")
>> > Signed-off-by: Gaurav Singh <gaurav1086@gmail.com>
>> 
>> Above is the correct use of Fixes + Signed-off-by.
>> 
>> Now you need to update/improve the description, to also
>> mention/describe that this also solves the bug you found.
>
> This is not a fix, it's a conversion of one
> correct code to a shorter one.

No it isn't - the original code memset()s before it checks the return
from malloc(), so it's a potential NULL-pointer reference... Which the
commit message should explain, obviously :)

-Toke