linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: sirf: Add missing put_device() call in sirfsoc_gpio

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <01abac73-2107-daf2-d7bd-bef9d73d554a@web.de>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:56:42 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@...wei.com>, Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: sirf: Add missing put_device() call in
 sirfsoc_gpio_probe()

> in sirfsoc_gpio_probe(), if of_find_device_by_node() succeed,
> put_device() is missing in the error handling patch.

How do you think about another wording variant?

   A coccicheck run provided information like the following.

   drivers/pinctrl/sirf/pinctrl-sirf.c:798:2-8: ERROR: missing put_device;
   call of_find_device_by_node on line 792, but without a corresponding
   object release within this function.

   Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/free/put_device.cocci

   Thus add a jump target to fix the exception handling for this
   function implementation.

Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?

Regards,
Markus