linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: sun50i: fix memory leak in dt_has_supported

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, 20 May 2024 14:04:29 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
Cc: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>,
	Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@...il.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: sun50i: fix memory leak in
 dt_has_supported_hw()

On 20-05-24, 09:26, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2024 13:03:39 +0530
> Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > On 10-05-24, 17:49, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > On Fri, 03 May 2024 19:52:32 +0200
> > > Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com> wrote:  
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c b/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c
> > > > index 0b882765cd66..ef83e4bf2639 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c
> > > > @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id cpu_opp_match_list[] = {
> > > >  static bool dt_has_supported_hw(void)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	bool has_opp_supported_hw = false;
> > > > -	struct device_node *np, *opp;
> > > > +	struct device_node *np;  
> > 
> > Why is the opp pointer removed ?
> 
> Because it's now declared *inside* the for_each_child_of_node_scoped loop
> below, courtesy of this new macro. The idea is that by doing so, any
> "break;" will exit the scope, triggering the cleanup routine. The loop
> running till "the end" will also make "opp" exit its scope, triggering the
> same routine.

Applied. Thanks.

-- 
viresh