From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7878FA3728 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:44:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97BC6205F4 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:44:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="PDFFMc4s" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730844AbfJPLob (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:44:31 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-f195.google.com ([209.85.166.195]:34462 "EHLO mail-il1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728578AbfJPLob (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:44:31 -0400 Received: by mail-il1-f195.google.com with SMTP id c12so2258582ilm.1; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:44:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9rzJpZ/HcxH5TEm+aJfkTf0wd0cfT+dxcCtHXvrqpcY=; b=PDFFMc4s/lwX18Vk+hPzEDGpDQ3h47O+UWMuWS49bHhoyM6mM/fjxovdm6PCjkKAnG MVZMfm2/x4nbcaTqPzyni6bO2SNJeI1cIVUc70BFj36w6pZY69qvlqL7wKyj091nCNkp /Ec00BI9wZmhz6tbD2yV2+4Ajpsb81v7Ef+i/0HpGX2q93r9h5FIqA+df8fEyaLExcJA tmOZaBqhvrQ8HQSs4YaYm9QgOU4/dMg1G/pB+ue8CmddgqcjZKZak+EZg1iA8+mOQKnZ 4LUQtq0Vd8vt4fzVdfpJioxlu9N/Mx+DndRyYTzAUpc8Yi41inEdvAuvmt5TF5QJjjKD WAiw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9rzJpZ/HcxH5TEm+aJfkTf0wd0cfT+dxcCtHXvrqpcY=; b=c+g5jF8GR4d+u/1JhzgKJ4t1KZ5tSaN93uDOVKWbQnlWNcvSkiDWoYiwIAHZhx5CZv DekC9R7eYDYhE5ckhDWGQ1lNtV3oZo5u+ASBCcXJIO4mpec7HY+Eq2UvCu52f2K0wi96 qxTcCsBDJ0IBq6LON80lGcbo5Id8C5yShU4IDXDt6YdOE5+Uoi0ocay4Rq30AxPvxcgx 9enyNWp8ja2gMMygrTRFTrfcQ9tp3LDmplE7lKD4GTu7jc9rx3JeJecTGfQWfHuGimDc n++CLwcSx63Hx1Aunlv9LOQm3nvnR8kRmV13MIgNNWG2X9/o1ylssdC0H5IRYC5K7U/v oVhQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW5Dlb5v3wLdasCmRa45oiN/B6LldjRooPIXmUmofqz0qF1KZR7 i9JMHIvpmvIL1lk5yBHCk5v2XLaNMpQ+rLUEcPI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyxv7TzerJeMw6nTSB+UeqDuw41lCw0ERreleWN40C0AUydIYPur8vywHaxYsreWEALTqx1BPxv9Rd1EjwEScI= X-Received: by 2002:a92:6701:: with SMTP id b1mr5510418ilc.181.1571226269872; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:44:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7933ce8f-ca1b-6ed8-14b9-59679130dc47@web.de> <285fab33-0513-8a6b-f30d-f602c4e5108e@web.de> In-Reply-To: <285fab33-0513-8a6b-f30d-f602c4e5108e@web.de> From: Tomasz Figa Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:44:18 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: clk: samsung: Checking a kmemdup() call in _samsung_clk_register_pll() To: Markus Elfring Cc: "open list:COMMON CLK FRAMEWORK" , "moderated list:SAMSUNG SOC CLOCK DRIVERS" , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Chanwoo Choi , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , Sylwester Nawrocki , Aditya Pakki , Kangjie Lu , Navid Emamdoost , Stephen McCamant , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org 2019=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8816=E6=97=A5(=E6=B0=B4) 19:55 Markus Elfring : > > >> * Is there a need to adjust the error handling here? > > > > No, there isn't much that can be done if we fail the allocation at > > such an early stage. > > Can it matter to perform the setting =E2=80=9Cpll->rate_count=E2=80=9D on= ly according > to a null pointer check for the variable =E2=80=9Cpll->rate_table=E2=80= =9D > because of the function call =E2=80=9Ckmemdup=E2=80=9D? It would be a good practice indeed, but looking from the code, pll->rate_table is checked elsewhere, not pll->rate_count. Best regards, Tomasz