linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net/sonic: Fix some resource leaks in error handling paths

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: <20200509111321.51419b19@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Sat, 9 May 2020 11:13:21 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, fthain@...egraphics.com.au,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/sonic: Fix some resource leaks in error handling
 paths

On Sat, 9 May 2020 18:47:08 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 09/05/2020 à 03:54, Jakub Kicinski a écrit :
> > On Fri,  8 May 2020 19:25:57 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote:  
> >> @@ -527,8 +531,9 @@ static int mac_sonic_platform_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>   	struct sonic_local* lp = netdev_priv(dev);
> >>   
> >>   	unregister_netdev(dev);
> >> -	dma_free_coherent(lp->device, SIZEOF_SONIC_DESC * SONIC_BUS_SCALE(lp->dma_bitmode),
> >> -	                  lp->descriptors, lp->descriptors_laddr);
> >> +	dma_free_coherent(lp->device,
> >> +			  SIZEOF_SONIC_DESC * SONIC_BUS_SCALE(lp->dma_bitmode),
> >> +			  lp->descriptors, lp->descriptors_laddr);
> >>   	free_netdev(dev);
> >>   
> >>   	return 0;  
> > This is a white-space only change, right? Since this is a fix we should
> > avoid making cleanups which are not strictly necessary.
>
> Right.
> 
> The reason of this clean-up is that I wanted to avoid a checkpatch 
> warning with the proposed patch and I felt that having the same layout 
> in the error handling path of the probe function and in the remove 
> function was clearer.
> So I updated also the remove function.

I understand the motivation is good.

> Fell free to ignore this hunk if not desired. I will not sent a V2 only 
> for that.

That's not how it works. Busy maintainers don't have time to hand edit
patches. I'm not applying this to the networking tree and I'm tossing it
from patchwork. Please address the basic feedback.

Thank you.