From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: walter harms Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: mpt3sas: Fix memory allocation failure test in 'mpt3sas_base_attach()' Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 10:25:48 +0200 Message-ID: <5988240C.1050702@bfs.de> References: <20170806225134.27079-1-christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> Reply-To: wharms@bfs.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170806225134.27079-1-christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christophe JAILLET Cc: sathya.prakash@broadcom.com, chaitra.basappa@broadcom.com, suganath-prabu.subramani@broadcom.com, jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Am 07.08.2017 00:51, schrieb Christophe JAILLET: > In the lines above this test, 8 'kzalloc' are performed, but only 7 results > are tested. > > Add the missing one (i.e. '!ioc->port_enable_cmds.reply'). > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET > --- > drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c b/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c > index 1a5b6e40fb5c..8a44636ab0b5 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c > @@ -5494,10 +5494,10 @@ mpt3sas_base_attach(struct MPT3SAS_ADAPTER *ioc) > ioc->ctl_cmds.status = MPT3_CMD_NOT_USED; > mutex_init(&ioc->ctl_cmds.mutex); > > - if (!ioc->base_cmds.reply || !ioc->transport_cmds.reply || > - !ioc->scsih_cmds.reply || !ioc->tm_cmds.reply || > - !ioc->config_cmds.reply || !ioc->ctl_cmds.reply || > - !ioc->ctl_cmds.sense) { > + if (!ioc->base_cmds.reply || !ioc->port_enable_cmds.reply || > + !ioc->transport_cmds.reply || !ioc->scsih_cmds.reply || > + !ioc->tm_cmds.reply || !ioc->config_cmds.reply || > + !ioc->ctl_cmds.reply || !ioc->ctl_cmds.sense) { > r = -ENOMEM; > goto out_free_resources; > } obviously it is better to follow the pattern "malloc() , check". Even the programmer lost track. Bonus points if you malloc the buffers in one step. just my 2 cents, re, wh