[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210527150109.GO24442@kadam>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 18:01:09 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
Cc: Liu Shuo <b35362@...escale.com>,
Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar@...escale.com>,
Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
Dipen Dudhat <Dipen.Dudhat@...escale.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Raghav Dogra <raghav.dogra@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH 2/2] memory: fsl_ifc: fix leak of private memory on
probe failure
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 10:42:40AM -0400, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On probe error the driver should free the memory allocated for private
> structure. Fix this by using resource-managed allocation.
>
> Fixes: a20cbdeffce2 ("powerpc/fsl: Add support for Integrated Flash Controller")
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
>
> ---
>
> Only build tested.
> ---
> drivers/memory/fsl_ifc.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/memory/fsl_ifc.c b/drivers/memory/fsl_ifc.c
> index a6324044a085..3ee7183b20fb 100644
> --- a/drivers/memory/fsl_ifc.c
> +++ b/drivers/memory/fsl_ifc.c
> @@ -209,7 +209,8 @@ static int fsl_ifc_ctrl_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
>
> dev_info(&dev->dev, "Freescale Integrated Flash Controller\n");
>
> - fsl_ifc_ctrl_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*fsl_ifc_ctrl_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
> + fsl_ifc_ctrl_dev = devm_kzalloc(&dev->dev, sizeof(*fsl_ifc_ctrl_dev),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!fsl_ifc_ctrl_dev)
> return -ENOMEM;
You'd need to remove the kfree(ctrl) in the remove function as well or
it will lead to a double free.
Unrelated to your patch but related to Smatch. The Smatch check for
resource leaks which I mentioned check_unwind.c doesn't look for
kmalloc() leaks because those are quite complicated to deal with.
kmalloc() allocations are so much more common and that if you have a 5%
false positive rate, then it's just overwhelming. There is a separate
Smatch check for that but it's garbage and I need to re-write it.
Also I'm really inspired by Christophe JAILLET's Coccinelle checks which
compare the ->probe and ->remove() functions to see if they match. So I
may attempt something similar.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists