linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: of: Add of_node

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <af559a36-c926-e2a5-a401-aae0f6867a6e@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:02:52 +0530
From:   Nishka Dasgupta <nishkadg.linux@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     lgirdwood@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: of: Add of_node_put() before return in
 function

On 24/07/19 9:17 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 02:02:31PM +0530, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
>> The local variable search in regulator_of_get_init_node takes the value
>> returned by either of_get_child_by_name or of_node_get, both of which
>> get a node. If this node is not put before returning, it could cause a
>> memory leak. Hence put search before a mid-loop return statement.
>> Issue found with Coccinelle.
> 
>> -		if (!strcmp(desc->of_match, name))
>> +		if (!strcmp(desc->of_match, name)) {
>> +			of_node_put(search);
>>   			return of_node_get(child);
>> +		}
> 
> Why not just remove the extra of_node_get() and a comment explaining why
> it's not needed?
> 
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand. I'm putting search in this patch; 
the program was already getting child. Should I also return child 
directly instead of getting it again, and continue to put search?

Thanking you,
Nishka