[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9ff84256-c7d2-48e5-b06b-09a993db2c39@web.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 17:24:47 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, David Gow
<davidgow@...gle.com>, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kunit: avoid memory leak on device register error
> If the device register fails, free the allocated memory before
> returning.
* I suggest to use the word “registration” (instead of “register”)
in the commit message.
* Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” accordingly?
> +++ b/lib/kunit/device.c
> @@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ static struct kunit_device *kunit_device_register_internal(struct kunit *test,
> err = device_register(&kunit_dev->dev);
> if (err) {
> put_device(&kunit_dev->dev);
> + kfree(kunit_dev);
> return ERR_PTR(err);
> }
Common error handling code can be used instead
if an additional label would be applied for a corresponding jump target.
How do you think about to increase the application of scope-based resource management here?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists