[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130117115637.GB25615@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:56:37 +0000
From: Cong Ding <dinggnu@...il.com>
To: Richard Mortimer <richm@...elvet.org.uk>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sparc: kernel/sbus.c: fix memory leakage
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:41:59AM +0000, Richard Mortimer wrote:
>
>
> On 16/01/2013 22:01, Cong Ding wrote:
> >the variable iommu and strbuf are not freed if it goes to error.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Cong Ding <dinggnu@...il.com>
> >---
> > arch/sparc/kernel/sbus.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/sbus.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/sbus.c
> >index 1271b3a..78aa26b 100644
> >--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/sbus.c
> >+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/sbus.c
> >@@ -656,6 +656,8 @@ static void __init sbus_iommu_init(struct platform_device *op)
> > return;
> >
> > fatal_memory_error:
> >+ kfree(strbuf);
>
> strbuf will be uninitialized if the iommu allocation fails. I don't
> have a particular preference for how to fix this but tend to dislike
> initial assignment with NULL because it hides other control flow
> issues.
Sorry I didn't notice strbuf will be uninitialized here. But if we don't
initially assign a NULL value to strbuf, I cannot find a way to handle it
besides the first version patch. Did you have any suggestions? For me, I like
the first version.
- cong
>
> Regards
>
> Richard
>
> >+ kfree(iommu);
> > prom_printf("sbus_iommu_init: Fatal memory allocation error.\n");
> > }
> >
> >
--
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