[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100614223304.GB31069@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:33:04 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Axel Lin <axel.lin@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
Anssi Hannula <anssi.hannula@...il.com>,
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <bero@...linux.org>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] qcserial: fix a memory leak in qcprobe error path
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 03:29:23PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
> In current implemtation, the "data" is not kfreed in qcprobe error path.
> This patch moves the memory allocation a little bit latter and only
> allocate memory when no error is detected in previous checking.
Yeah, but it's now pretty messy.
> --- a/drivers/usb/serial/qcserial.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/serial/qcserial.c
> @@ -109,13 +109,6 @@ static int qcprobe(struct usb_serial *serial, const struct usb_device_id *id)
> ifnum = intf->desc.bInterfaceNumber;
> dbg("This Interface = %d", ifnum);
>
> - data = serial->private = kzalloc(sizeof(struct usb_wwan_intf_private),
> - GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!data)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> -
> - spin_lock_init(&data->susp_lock);
> -
Moving this to the end is fine.
> @@ -140,7 +135,7 @@ static int qcprobe(struct usb_serial *serial, const struct usb_device_id *id)
> retval);
> retval = -ENODEV;
> }
> - return retval;
> + goto out;
But this doesn't need to be changed, right?
Or this.
> }
> break;
>
> @@ -156,17 +151,26 @@ static int qcprobe(struct usb_serial *serial, const struct usb_device_id *id)
> retval);
> retval = -ENODEV;
> }
> - return retval;
> + goto out;
Or this?
> }
> break;
>
> default:
> dev_err(&serial->dev->dev,
> "unknown number of interfaces: %d\n", nintf);
> - return -ENODEV;
Hm. maybe.
> }
>
> - return retval;
> +out:
> + if (retval)
> + return retval;
> +
> + data = serial->private = kzalloc(sizeof(struct usb_wwan_intf_private),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!data)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + spin_lock_init(&data->susp_lock);
> + return 0;
I guess it's ok, I just don't like doing data initialization on the
"out" path, it's messy.
Care to neaten this up a bit more and resend it? Perhaps just free the
memory on the error path instead of moving it later on?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists