Re: + cifs-check-for-granted-memory.patch added to -mm tree

[Jesper Juhl]

On 17/08/07, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The patch titled
>      CIFS: check for granted memory
> has been added to the -mm tree.  Its filename is
>      cifs-check-for-granted-memory.patch
>
> *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
>
> See http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/added-to-mm.txt to find
> out what to do about this
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: CIFS: check for granted memory
> From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Add a check for granted memory to prevent possible NULL pointer usage.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Steven French <sfrench@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
>  fs/cifs/sess.c |    4 ++++
>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff -puN fs/cifs/sess.c~cifs-check-for-granted-memory fs/cifs/sess.c
> --- a/fs/cifs/sess.c~cifs-check-for-granted-memory
> +++ a/fs/cifs/sess.c
> @@ -372,6 +372,10 @@ CIFS_SessSetup(unsigned int xid, struct
>
>         /* 2000 big enough to fit max user, domain, NOS name etc. */
>         str_area = kmalloc(2000, GFP_KERNEL);
> +       if (str_area == NULL) {
> +               cifs_small_buf_release(smb_buf);
> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +       }

The patch, as such, is fine - not arguing against it, but as a matter
of style; don't we usually prefer the "if (!foo)" form over "if (foo
== NULL)" ??

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/