[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1502833167-19354-1-git-send-email-khoroshilov@ispras.ru>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:39:27 +0300
From: Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>,
Krzysztof Opasiak <k.opasiak@...sung.com>,
Anton Vasilyev <vasilyev@...ras.ru>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ldv-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Inconsistency in usb_add_gadget_udc_release() interface
Hello,
usb_add_gadget_udc_release() gets release() argument that allows to
release user resources.
As far as I can see, the release() is called on error paths
of usb_add_gadget_udc_release() as a result of
put_device(&gadget->dev);
except for the only path going via err1.
As a result a caller of the usb_add_gadget_udc_release() have no chance
to know if the release() was invoked or not.
It may lead to memory leaks (drivers/usb/gadget/udc/snps_udc_core.c)
or to double free (drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_udc_core.c).
Is my reading correct? If so, should we always call release() on error paths?
--
Alexey Khoroshilov
Linux Verification Center, ISPRAS
web: http://linuxtesting.org
Powered by blists - more mailing lists