[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240915072604.GG2825852@ZenIV>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 08:26:04 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Daniel Yang <danielyangkang@...il.com>
Cc: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>,
Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot+e1c69cadec0f1a078e3d@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/exfat: resolve memory leak from
exfat_create_upcase_table()
On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 08:23:36AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> IMO it would be less brittle that way. And commit message needs
> the explanation of the leak mechanism - a link to reporter is
> nice, but it doesn't explain what's going on.
Actually, nevermind the part about commit message - what you have
there is OK. I still think that the call would be better off
in exfat_create_upcase_table(), though - less brittle that way.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists