From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from madrid.collaboradmins.com (madrid.collaboradmins.com [46.235.227.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56354320E; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:42:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.235.227.194 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713861749; cv=none; b=qr89vKFZqXK7kq4FHIywEZ5DKkTSvqOUpmM73VCsUwXXcWUcffZafCKrvjsIqsmjiv3vVVzcIQ4LyI+89/P5yNAnA1M0WA8CFEmI4NhnQ5R2Lro5MHVusFxm6EvYVZLHIaYLGpt6RsHtdVuUd8dwARD5ykml61UASSe6huuBTHI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713861749; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lCEgH6CjISLGxTFDuXB9DyweUCZb4U8cml+VeZJsxb8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Cc:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Ly9gL5wQAkkCsbJDg02PAk+RHgsjcu1lgcNniLlV+gz+Pwvm8guHZ6sKv4I3OByidPqIRRzTrLt2aC8ZJ+e/f7rc6Niccm9+lzrYQ+Mdj0PC/QVPF1mcgpFYuNg+HRj9BPPIQVP6x4wv3Y0yL7nGUAFoiULn3vMOBIgpCfI1MY8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=collabora.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b=fzp7ISOZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.235.227.194 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b="fzp7ISOZ" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1713861746; bh=lCEgH6CjISLGxTFDuXB9DyweUCZb4U8cml+VeZJsxb8=; h=Date:Cc:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=fzp7ISOZTZr9+iDobVs6ZrXUUgMj/2HKNiqi++bWH1yrgi0BBaw/5HPRADC5gSZPF AF0AD+MWcLZPUht2FcDsov+eDyXcX3TQxl95tqFmMh8BMsKgvSq8rUNsurpHwiptAV sbCQBP+edEMGYOcpk3HlkV/TxHxrE8WIfStYP8p5vUZvW+o0wag0btWoUKcntDl344 VOZ3HpLkMs/YJT18LDa9O/hLofOJCxyNuDBAu145pZnFQULT+oEFE3Nx22Cs/NswBe 7IxVByNuufNWddqj/X116zbdxG05ItoUFoYfOeufLwNkGfK2SoIAofLnOQNLw5s2v1 yctat8YJbky+Q== Received: from [10.193.1.1] (broslavsky.collaboradmins.com [68.183.210.73]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: usama.anjum) by madrid.collaboradmins.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28D363780016; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:42:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 13:42:51 +0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cc: Muhammad Usama Anjum , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kselftest: arm64: Add a null pointer check To: Kunwu Chan , kunwu.chan@hotmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org References: <20240423082102.2018886-1-chentao@kylinos.cn> Content-Language: en-US From: Muhammad Usama Anjum In-Reply-To: <20240423082102.2018886-1-chentao@kylinos.cn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/23/24 1:21 PM, Kunwu Chan wrote: > There is a 'malloc' call, which can be unsuccessful. > This patch will add the malloc failure checking > to avoid possible null dereference and give more information > about test fail reasons. LGTM Reviewed-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum > > Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan > --- > tools/testing/selftests/arm64/tags/tags_test.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/tags/tags_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/tags/tags_test.c > index 5701163460ef..955f87c1170d 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/tags/tags_test.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/tags/tags_test.c > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include "../../kselftest.h" The test isn't conformed to TAP. Maybe the next patch could be to conform the whole test into TAP, would be easy and straight forward. > > #define SHIFT_TAG(tag) ((uint64_t)(tag) << 56) > #define SET_TAG(ptr, tag) (((uint64_t)(ptr) & ~SHIFT_TAG(0xff)) | \ > @@ -21,6 +22,9 @@ int main(void) > if (prctl(PR_SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL, PR_TAGGED_ADDR_ENABLE, 0, 0, 0) == 0) > tbi_enabled = 1; > ptr = (struct utsname *)malloc(sizeof(*ptr)); > + if (!ptr) > + ksft_exit_fail_msg("Failed to allocate utsname buffer\n"); > + > if (tbi_enabled) > tag = 0x42; > ptr = (struct utsname *)SET_TAG(ptr, tag); -- BR, Muhammad Usama Anjum