From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:37:09 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] gianfar: Less function calls in gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() after error detecti
Message-Id: <1452854229.8586.48.camel@perches.com>
List-Id: <kernel-janitors.vger.kernel.org>
References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net>
	 <56866E7F.8080609@users.sourceforge.net>
	 <5698C53C.8060204@users.sourceforge.net>
	 <5698C5CB.80305@users.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <5698C5CB.80305@users.sourceforge.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@freescale.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>

On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 11:11 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> The kfree() function was called in one case by the
> gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() function during error handling
> even if a passed variable contained a null pointer.
>=20
> * Return directly if a memory allocation failed at the beginning.
>=20
> * Adjust jump targets according to the Linux coding style convention.
>=20
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Is this really better?

Perhaps this particular static analysis isn't too useful.

Why not just allocate once and assign a second pointer?

	local_rqfpr =3D kmalloc_array(2 * (MAX_FILER_IDX + 1),
				=A0 =A0 sizeof(unsigned int), GFP_KERNEL);
	if (!local_rqfpr)
		goto err;

	local_rqfcr =3D &local_rqfpr[MAX_FILER_IDX + 1];

Perhaps this would be better removing the ret variable
and using something like:

int gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table(...)
{
	...

	return 0;

err:
	kfree(local_rqfpt);
	return 1;
}

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" =
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html