linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] gpio: Add Intel Granite Rapids-D vGPIO driver

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

Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 20:59:29 +0000
From: "Elliott, Robert (Servers)" <elliott@....com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC: Aapo Vienamo <aapo.vienamo@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij
	<linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        "Andy
 Shevchenko" <andy@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg
	<mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko
	<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] gpio: Add Intel Granite Rapids-D vGPIO driver



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 5:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Add Intel Granite Rapids-D vGPIO driver
> 
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 PM Elliott, Robert (Servers)
> <elliott@....com> wrote:
...

> > > +     priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, struct_size(priv, pad_backup,
> > > num_backup_pins), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +     if (!priv)
> > > +             return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > +     regs = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> > > +     if (IS_ERR(regs))
> > > +             return PTR_ERR(regs);
> > > +
> > > +     irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > > +     if (irq < 0)
> > > +             return irq;
> > > +
> > > +     ret = devm_request_irq(dev, irq, gnr_gpio_irq, IRQF_SHARED |
> > > IRQF_NO_THREAD,
> > > +                            dev_name(dev), priv);
> > > +     if (ret)
> > > +             return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "failed to request
> interrupt\n");
> >
> > All of these early returns will leave the memory allocated to priv
> > forever, since priv isn't saved anywhere until:
> 
> > > +     platform_set_drvdata(pdev, priv);
> 
> I'm not sure I got your comment right. Do you think there is a memory
> leak on the error paths above? If so, can you elaborate, because I
> don't see it?

I didn't recall that devm_kzalloc saves the pointer on its own (into dev),
so it looks safe.