Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] soc: bcm: Check for NULL return of devm_kzalloc() | From | QintaoShen <> | Date | Mon, 28 Mar 2022 12:13:40 +0800 |
| |
OK. Here is the new version.
Signed-off-by: QintaoShen <unSimple1993@163.com> --- drivers/soc/bcm/bcm63xx/bcm-pmb.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/soc/bcm/bcm63xx/bcm-pmb.c b/drivers/soc/bcm/bcm63xx/bcm-pmb.c index 7bbe46e..cc20ffb 100644 --- a/drivers/soc/bcm/bcm63xx/bcm-pmb.c +++ b/drivers/soc/bcm/bcm63xx/bcm-pmb.c @@ -312,6 +312,9 @@ static int bcm_pmb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) for (e = table; e->name; e++) { struct bcm_pmb_pm_domain *pd = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pd), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!pd) + return -ENOMEM; + pd->pmb = pmb; pd->data = e; pd->genpd.name = e->name; -- 2.7.4 在 2022/3/25 下午5:02, Sergey Shtylyov 写道: > Hello! > > s/return/result/ in the subject. > > On 3/24/22 11:35 AM, QintaoShen wrote: > >> As the potential failuer of allocation, devm_kzalloc() may return NULL. >> Then the 'pd->pmb' and the follow lines of code may bring null pointer dereference. > Following. > >> Therefore, it is better to check the return value of devm_kzalloc() to avoid this confusion. >> >> Signed-off-by: QintaoShen <unSimple1993@163.com> >> --- >> drivers/soc/bcm/bcm63xx/bcm-pmb.c | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/soc/bcm/bcm63xx/bcm-pmb.c b/drivers/soc/bcm/bcm63xx/bcm-pmb.c >> index 7bbe46e..55bf389 100644 >> --- a/drivers/soc/bcm/bcm63xx/bcm-pmb.c >> +++ b/drivers/soc/bcm/bcm63xx/bcm-pmb.c >> @@ -311,6 +311,8 @@ static int bcm_pmb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> >> for (e = table; e->name; e++) { >> struct bcm_pmb_pm_domain *pd = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pd), GFP_KERNEL); > Please keep an empty line after declaration. > >> + if (!pd) >> + return -ENOMEM; >> >> pd->pmb = pmb; >> pd->data = e; > MBR, Sergey
| |