linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arch: fix resource leak in chmc.c

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]

Message-ID: <cc7db82b-0337-4342-aeaf-ec6376cbcc74@web.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:43:27 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Siyang Liu <1972843537@...com>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andreas Larsson
 <andreas@...sler.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch: fix resource leak in chmc.c

> In the jbusmc_probe function, the device node mem_node fetched 
> via of_find_node_by_path("/memory") is not properly freed 
> on all code paths. 
…

You may occasionally put more than 62 characters into text lines
of such a change description.

See also:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.16-rc6#n94

* How do you think about to add any tags (like “Fixes” and “Cc”) accordingly?

* Will an other subsystem specification be more appropriate?

* Would it be more helpful to refer to “jbusmc_probe()” instead of “chmc.c”
  in the summary phrase?

Regards,
Markus