From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S965396AbcJXURn (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:17:43 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f68.google.com ([209.85.218.68]:36389 "EHLO
        mail-oi0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S935599AbcJXURk (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:17:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpXj3ktALCmjwaPKJuf0SDEc6Txk-yYkRzZ79LFEsxOx3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20161024191126.30256-1-socketcan@hartkopp.net> <CAM_iQpXj3ktALCmjwaPKJuf0SDEc6Txk-yYkRzZ79LFEsxOx3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:17:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpVmhH_9vQcTw+wP1qmPLOijZZrMZrq=_e4i5fUXYDON0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: fix warning in bcm_connect/proc_register
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
Cc: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, linux-can@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Oliver Hartkopp
> <socketcan@hartkopp.net> wrote:
>>         if (proc_dir) {
>>                 /* unique socket address as filename */
>>                 sprintf(bo->procname, "%lu", sock_i_ino(sk));
>>                 bo->bcm_proc_read = proc_create_data(bo->procname, 0644,
>>                                                      proc_dir,
>>                                                      &bcm_proc_fops, sk);
>> +               if (!bo->bcm_proc_read) {
>> +                       ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +                       goto fail;
>> +               }
>
> Well, I meant we need to call proc_create_data() once per socket,
> so we need a check before proc_create_data() too.

Hmm, bo->bound should guarantee it, so never mind, your patch
looks fine.