[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7450dab5-3c3f-0b91-4656-6c5a7cf4d49d@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 16:48:47 +0000
From: "Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@....com>
To: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
CC: Navid Emamdoost <navid.emamdoost@...il.com>,
"emamd001@....edu" <emamd001@....edu>,
"smccaman@....edu" <smccaman@....edu>,
"kjlu@....edu" <kjlu@....edu>,
"Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@....com>,
"Zhou, David(ChunMing)" <David1.Zhou@....com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Rex Zhu <Rex.Zhu@....com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
"amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/amdgpu: fix multiple memory leaks
Am 19.09.19 um 16:28 schrieb Sven Van Asbroeck:
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 4:05 AM Koenig, Christian
> <Christian.Koenig@....com> wrote:
>>> +out4:
>>> + kfree(i2s_pdata);
>>> +out3:
>>> + kfree(adev->acp.acp_res);
>>> +out2:
>>> + kfree(adev->acp.acp_cell);
>>> +out1:
>>> + kfree(adev->acp.acp_genpd);
>> kfree on a NULL pointer is harmless, so a single error label should be
>> sufficient.
> That is true, but I notice that the adev structure comes from outside this
> driver:
adev is a very integral part of the driver and always zero initialized:
adev = kzalloc(sizeof(struct amdgpu_device), GFP_KERNEL);
Regards,
Christian.
>
> static int acp_hw_init(void *handle)
> {
> ...
> struct amdgpu_device *adev = (struct amdgpu_device *)handle;
> ...
> }
>
> As far as I can tell, the init() does not explicitly set these to NULL:
> adev->acp.acp_res
> adev->acp.acp_cell
> adev->acp.acp_genpd
>
> I am assuming that core code sets these to NULL, before calling
> acp_hw_init(). But is that guaranteed or simply a happy accident?
> Ie. if they are NULL today, are they likely to remain NULL tomorrow?
>
> Because calling kfree() on a stale pointer would be, well
> not good. Especially not on an error path, which typically
> does not receive much testing, if any.
>
> My apologies if I have misinterpreted this, I am not familiar with
> this code base.
>
> Sven
Powered by blists - more mailing lists