Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:43:48 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
Cc:     stephen@networkplumber.org, kys@microsoft.com,
        haiyangz@microsoft.com, sthemmin@microsoft.com, wei.liu@kernel.org,
        decui@microsoft.com, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
        ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, hawk@kernel.org,
        john.fastabend@gmail.com, andrii@kernel.org, kafai@fb.com,
        songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hv_netvsc: Add check for kvmalloc_array
Message-ID: <YirvpH4+KTyH2xTe@kroah.com>
References: <20220311032035.2037962-1-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220311032035.2037962-1-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:20:35AM +0800, Jiasheng Jiang wrote:
> As the potential failure of the kvmalloc_array(),
> it should be better to check and restore the 'data'
> if fails in order to avoid the dereference of the
> NULL pointer.
> 
> Fixes: 6ae746711263 ("hv_netvsc: Add per-cpu ethtool stats for netvsc")
> Signed-off-by: Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c b/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c
> index 3646469433b1..018c4a5f6f44 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c
> @@ -1587,6 +1587,12 @@ static void netvsc_get_ethtool_stats(struct net_device *dev,
>  	pcpu_sum = kvmalloc_array(num_possible_cpus(),
>  				  sizeof(struct netvsc_ethtool_pcpu_stats),
>  				  GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!pcpu_sum) {
> +		for (j = 0; j < i; j++)
> +			data[j] = 0;
> +		return;
> +	}

How did you test this to verify it is correct?

thanks,

greg k-h