Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: check memory allocation failure
From: Waskiewicz Jr, Peter
Date: Thu Sep 14 2017 - 10:47:29 EST
On 9/13/17 7:24 PM, Brown, Aaron F wrote:
>> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>> Of Christophe JAILLET
>> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 10:13 AM
>> To: Waskiewicz Jr, Peter <peter.waskiewicz.jr@xxxxxxxxx>; Kirsher, Jeffrey T
>> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-wired-
>> lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: check memory allocation failure
>> Le 28/08/2017 à 01:09, Waskiewicz Jr, Peter a écrit :
>>> On 8/27/17 2:42 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>>>> Check memory allocation failures and return -ENOMEM in such cases, as
>>>> already done for other memory allocations in this function.
>>>> This avoids NULL pointers dereference.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 2 ++
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> This seems to be fine from a "it does not break in testing" perspective, so...
> Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@xxxxxxxxx
>> in fact, there is no leak because the only caller of 'igb_sw_init()'
>> (i.e. 'igb_probe()'), already frees these resources in case of error,
>> see 
>> These resources are also freed in 'igb_remove()'.
>> Best reagrds,
> But is PJ's comment saying that it is not really necessary? If so I tend to lean towards the don't touch it if it's not broken perspective.
I guess I didn't respond after Christophe replied, sorry about that.
The patch is good to me. It's definitely catching an issue where we're
not checking for a memory failure, then just follows the same
de-allocation path on unwind.
If you want it:
Acked-by: PJ Waskiewicz <peter.waskiewicz.jr@xxxxxxxxx>