Re: [PATCH RESEND] scsi: megaraid: check kzalloc

[Tomas Henzl <thenzl@redhat.com>]

On 05/30/2013 04:32 AM, Libo Chen wrote:
> On 2013/5/30 9:38, Libo Chen wrote:
>> On 2013/5/29 23:03, Tomas Henzl wrote:
>>> On 05/24/2013 11:40 AM, Libo Chen wrote:
>>>> we should check kzalloc, avoid to hit oops
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Libo Chen <libo.chen@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/scsi/megaraid.c |    4 ++++
>>>>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> instead of checking scmd->device, sdev is more appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c b/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c
>>>> index 846f475..6b623cb 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/megaraid.c
>>>> @@ -4161,6 +4161,10 @@ mega_internal_command(adapter_t *adapter, megacmd_t *mc, mega_passthru *pthru)
>>>>  	memset(scb, 0, sizeof(scb_t));
>>>>
>>>>  	sdev = kzalloc(sizeof(struct scsi_device), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +	if (sdev) {
>>>> +		scsi_free_command(GFP_KERNEL, scmd);
>>> I think, that a mutex_unlock(&adapter->int_mtx); is also needed
>>> Maybe just setting a rval = -ENOMEM and a jump to to some point below?
>>>
>>> tomash
>> thanks for catching this.
>>
>> when kzalloc broken, fist unlock and then return.  I will update later.
>>
> I think we can put kzalloc outside of mutex_lock(&adapter->int_mtx) ?
> phase:

Yes, that is also possible, depends on what you prefer.

>
>    mutex_lock	   kzalloc
>    kzalloc     ->  mutex_lock
>    	
>
>> Libo
>>
>>>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +	}
>>>>  	scmd->device = sdev;
>>>>
>>>>  	memset(adapter->int_cdb, 0, sizeof(adapter->int_cdb));
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html