[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <77d6b960-aedc-c7ce-5df9-f3653bfd500a@web.de>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 10:45:08 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Qiushi Wu <wu000273@....edu>, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Doug Thompson <dougthompson@...ssion.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Robert Richter <rrichter@...vell.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] edac: Fix reference count leak in
edac_device_register_sysfs_main_kobj()
> object_init_and_add() should be handled when it return an error,
> because kobject_init_and_add() takes reference even when it fails.
I find this wording approach improvable.
> Previous commit "b8eb718348b8" fixed a similar problem.
Would you like to indicate with such information (according to
the topic “net-sysfs: Fix reference count leak in rx|netdev_queue_add_kobject”)
that your issue was detected also with the help of the kernel fuzzing
tool “syzkaller”?
How do you think about to add an imperative wording to the change description?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=b0c3ba31be3e45a130e13b278cf3b90f69bda6f6#n151
Will it be helpful to combine this update step together with
“edac: Fix reference count leak in edac_pci_main_kobj_setup”
into a small patch series?
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200528202238.18078-1-wu000273@umn.edu/
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1249351/
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists