[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <007001d2bf30$e751f850$b5f5e8f0$@foxmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:33:09 +0800
From: "Gao Feng" <gfree.wind@...mail.com>
To: "'Herbert Xu'" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: <jiri@...nulli.us>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
<jmorris@...ei.org>, <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, <kaber@...sh.net>,
<steffen.klassert@...unet.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"'Gao Feng'" <fgao@...ai8.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net] driver/net: Fix possible memleaks when fail to register_netdevice
> From: Herbert Xu [mailto:herbert@...dor.apana.org.au]
> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 4:16 PM
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 08:01:50PM +0800, gfree.wind@...mail.com wrote:
> > From: Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>
> >
[...]
>
> This has the potential of creating future bugs, because there is no
guarantee
> that the ndo_init function has been invoked at all.
>
> Wouldn't it be safer to move the freeing from the destructors into their
> ndo_uninit functions instead?
I considered about this solution, I am not sure if it is safe to move the
freeing from destructors into ndo_uninit.
Because when the free action is done in ndo_uninit, it is earlier than
destructor.
I am not sure if it break the design of original driver.
I just tested the team driver before. It is ok to free all mems in
ndo_uninit.
Is it possible that anyone are using the net_dev after ndo_uninit ?
If no one, i would like to update the patch.
Could you give me some guide please?
Regards
Feng
>
> Thanks,
> --
Powered by blists - more mailing lists