On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 07:02:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Colin King <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]> > > > > Currently saved_vals is being allocated and there is no check for > > failed allocation (which is more likely than normal when using > > GFP_ATOMIC). Fix this by checking for a failed allocation and > > propagating this error return down the the caller chain. > > > > Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1469841 ("Dereference null return value") > > > > Fixes: 88a1dbdec682 ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Add functions to save and > > restore pinctrl context") > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 14 +++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > > b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > > index 9c3c00515aa0..0905ee002041 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > > @@ -1588,8 +1588,11 @@ static int pcs_save_context(struct pcs_device *pcs) > > > > mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE; > > > > - if (!pcs->saved_vals) > > + if (!pcs->saved_vals) { > > pcs->saved_vals = devm_kzalloc(pcs->dev, pcs->size, > > GFP_ATOMIC); > > > + if (!pcs->saved_vals) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > Wouldn't make sense to move it out of the first condition? > > Something like > > if (!foo) > foo = ...malloc(...); > if (!foo) > return ...
No, checking for NULL immediately after the allocation is more obvious and easier to parse. Johan
