[U-Boot] [PATCH] test/overlay: Fix various malloc/free leaks
With the overlay tests now being built in sandbox Coverity has found a number of issues in the tests. In short, if malloc ever failed we would leak the previous mallocs, so we need to do the usual goto pattern to free each in turn. Finally, we always looked at the free()d location to see how many tests had failed for the return code.
Reported-by: Coverity (CID: 167224, 167227, 167230, 167236) Signed-off-by: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com --- test/overlay/cmd_ut_overlay.c | 16 ++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/overlay/cmd_ut_overlay.c b/test/overlay/cmd_ut_overlay.c index 24891ee82901..c730a11f5188 100644 --- a/test/overlay/cmd_ut_overlay.c +++ b/test/overlay/cmd_ut_overlay.c @@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ int do_ut_overlay(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[]) void *fdt_overlay = &__dtb_test_fdt_overlay_begin; void *fdt_overlay_stacked = &__dtb_test_fdt_overlay_stacked_begin; void *fdt_base_copy, *fdt_overlay_copy, *fdt_overlay_stacked_copy; + int ret = -ENOMEM;
uts = calloc(1, sizeof(*uts)); if (!uts) @@ -236,16 +237,16 @@ int do_ut_overlay(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[])
fdt_base_copy = malloc(FDT_COPY_SIZE); if (!fdt_base_copy) - return -ENOMEM; + goto err1; uts->priv = fdt_base_copy;
fdt_overlay_copy = malloc(FDT_COPY_SIZE); if (!fdt_overlay_copy) - return -ENOMEM; + goto err2;
fdt_overlay_stacked_copy = malloc(FDT_COPY_SIZE); if (!fdt_overlay_stacked_copy) - return -ENOMEM; + goto err3;
/* * Resize the FDT to 4k so that we have room to operate on @@ -293,11 +294,18 @@ int do_ut_overlay(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[]) }
printf("Failures: %d\n", uts->fail_count); + if (!uts->fail_count) + ret = 0; + else + ret = CMD_RET_FAILURE;
free(fdt_overlay_stacked_copy); +err3: free(fdt_overlay_copy); +err2: free(fdt_base_copy); +err1: free(uts);
- return uts->fail_count ? CMD_RET_FAILURE : 0; + return ret; }
Hello Tom,
I just read some days ago about the kernel Coding-Style:
<quote> Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists. An example of a good name could be ``out_free_buffer:`` if the goto frees ``buffer``. Avoid using GW-BASIC names like ``err1:`` and ``err2:``, as you would have to renumber them if you ever add or remove exit paths, and they make correctness difficult to verify anyway. </quote>
Does is make sense to follow this for U-Boot also and fix the names of the labels below?
free(fdt_overlay_stacked_copy); +err3: free(fdt_overlay_copy); +err2: free(fdt_base_copy); +err1: free(uts);
Best regards, Thomas
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 06:28:40PM +0000, Langer, Thomas wrote:
Hello Tom,
I just read some days ago about the kernel Coding-Style:
<quote> Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists. An example of a good name could be ``out_free_buffer:`` if the goto frees ``buffer``. Avoid using GW-BASIC names like ``err1:`` and ``err2:``, as you would have to renumber them if you ever add or remove exit paths, and they make correctness difficult to verify anyway. </quote>
Does is make sense to follow this for U-Boot also and fix the names of the labels below?
free(fdt_overlay_stacked_copy); +err3: free(fdt_overlay_copy); +err2: free(fdt_base_copy); +err1: free(uts);
We have in U-Boot a number of cases of both, and the majority (from a quick read on 'git grep goto' is of the less descriptive case. I can certainly see how descriptive goto labels make more sense in the case of large functions and especially complicated short-cuts. Do you think 'malloc_base_copy_failed', 'malloc_overlay_copy_failed' and 'malloc_stacked_copy_failed' make the code more readable?
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:43:12PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
With the overlay tests now being built in sandbox Coverity has found a number of issues in the tests. In short, if malloc ever failed we would leak the previous mallocs, so we need to do the usual goto pattern to free each in turn. Finally, we always looked at the free()d location to see how many tests had failed for the return code.
Reported-by: Coverity (CID: 167224, 167227, 167230, 167236) Signed-off-by: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com
Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!
participants (2)
-
Langer, Thomas -
Tom Rini