linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/x86/amd: Fix memory leak in wbrf

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20260103121717.149678-1-zilin@seu.edu.cn>
Date: Sat,  3 Jan 2026 12:17:17 +0000
From: Zilin Guan <zilin@....edu.cn>
To: ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com
Cc: hansg@...nel.org,
	jianhao.xu@....edu.cn,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
	zilin@....edu.cn,
	Markus.Elfring@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86/amd: Fix memory leak in wbrf_record()

On Fri, Jan 02, 2026 at 01:29:20PM +0200, "Ilpo Järvinen" wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Lets not get too attached to the ways of the past, using __free() is
> what we want to use even as a fix here. Adding goto labels adds 
> complexity, not reduces it, so I don't buy the easier backport argument
> (on backport each goto target should be carefully reviewed which is 
> something __free() does not require because it simply is better 
> interface).
> 
> You just need to remember to move also the variable declaration down to 
> the alloc site as per the guidance in cleanup.h.

Hi Ilpo,

Thanks for the feedback. I agree that using __free() is a better approach 
here to reduce complexity. I have updated the patch to use scope-based 
resource management and will send a v2 shortly.

Best regards,
Zilin Guan