linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] usb: phy: phy-tahvo: fix memory leak in tahvo_usb

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 13:57:14 +0800
From:   Dongliang Mu <dzm91@...t.edu.cn>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     ktestrobot@....com, U201911841@...t.edu.cn, lidaxian@...t.edu.cn,
        hust-os-kernel-patches@...glegroups.com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, balbi@...nel.org, s.shtylyov@....ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] usb: phy: phy-tahvo: fix memory leak in
 tahvo_usb_probe()


On 2023/4/25 13:50, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 01:32:35PM +0800, Dongliang Mu wrote:
>> On 2023/4/25 13:15, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 10:58:51AM +0800, ktestrobot@....com wrote:
>>>> Hi, Li Yang
>>>> This email is automatically replied by KTestRobot(Beta). Please do not reply to this email.
>>> But I will!
>>>
>>>> If you have any questions or suggestions about KTestRobot, please contact ZhongYong <U201911841@...t.edu.cn>
>>> First question, why are you responding from an email that is not allowed
>>> to be responded to and forced to have us manually add an address?
>>> That's not very nice or helpful for us who have to see these messages,
>>> please fix that.
>> Hi greg,
>>
>> thanks for your feedback.
>>
>> This robot is only used for our internal patch review. It should not send
>> any email out to Linux kernel mailing list.
> But it did :(
>
>> Sorry about this false alarm.
> It happened more than once here, so please be more careful with the bot.

Sure. All the emails sent to kernel mailing list are from the same time 
period. It results from the same development mistake. We will be more 
careful in the future.

Sorry again for our mistake.

BTW, should I reply to the affected mailing list and explain the 
situation? Or just leave it alone.

Dongliang Mu

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h