linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/tinydrm: Fix memroy leak in hx8357d

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]

Date:   Sun, 27 Oct 2019 20:55:48 +0100
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Navid Emamdoost <navid.emamdoost@...il.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc:     Navid Emamdoost <emamd001@....edu>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
        Stephen McCamant <smccaman@....edu>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/tinydrm: Fix memroy leak in hx8357d_probe

…
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/hx8357d.c
> @@ -232,44 +232,49 @@ static int hx8357d_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
…
> +		goto free_dbidev;
>
>  	spi_set_drvdata(spi, drm);

I got another development concern here.
Can it make sense to pass the variable “dbidev” instead of “drm”?


…
> +free_dbidev:
> +	kfree(dbidev);
…

I became curious if there is a need for such a memory release at another place.
How do you think about to add this function call also to the implementation
of the function “hx8357d_remove”?

Regards,
Markus