My previous commit introduced a memory leak where the item allocated
from tlmi_setting was not freed.
This commit also renames it to avoid confusion with the similarly name
variable in the same function.
Fixes: 8a02d70679fc ("platform/x86: think-lmi: Add possible_values for ThinkStation")
Reported-by: Mirsad Todorovac <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/
Signed-off-by: Mark Pearson <[email protected]>
---
This patch series builds on top of the proposed patch from Armin Wolf
"platform/x86: think-lmi: Fix memory leak when showing current settings"
drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
index 88da7bcb6ce9..ad952b49617b 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
@@ -1459,10 +1459,10 @@ static int tlmi_analyze(void)
* name string.
* Try and pull that out if it's available.
*/
- char *item, *optstart, *optend;
+ char *optitem, *optstart, *optend;
- if (!tlmi_setting(setting->index, &item, LENOVO_BIOS_SETTING_GUID)) {
- optstart = strstr(item, "[Optional:");
+ if (!tlmi_setting(setting->index, &optitem, LENOVO_BIOS_SETTING_GUID)) {
+ optstart = strstr(optitem, "[Optional:");
if (optstart) {
optstart += strlen("[Optional:");
optend = strstr(optstart, "]");
@@ -1471,6 +1471,7 @@ static int tlmi_analyze(void)
kstrndup(optstart, optend - optstart,
GFP_KERNEL);
}
+ kfree(optitem);
}
}
/*
--
2.39.2
On 4/1/23 13:43, Mark Pearson wrote:
> My previous commit introduced a memory leak where the item allocated
> from tlmi_setting was not freed.
> This commit also renames it to avoid confusion with the similarly name
> variable in the same function.
>
> Fixes: 8a02d70679fc ("platform/x86: think-lmi: Add possible_values for ThinkStation")
> Reported-by: Mirsad Todorovac <[email protected]>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/
> Signed-off-by: Mark Pearson <[email protected]>
> ---
> This patch series builds on top of the proposed patch from Armin Wolf
> "platform/x86: think-lmi: Fix memory leak when showing current settings"
Which version of the patch did you do it from? I tried to apply v3 of
Armin's patch
to Linus' tree and then apply these two.
The first applied, but the second had conflicts. Here was my base (with
patch 1 in
this series applied).
50c77e3211d7 (HEAD -> master) platform/x86: think-lmi: Fix memory leaks
when parsing ThinkStation WMI strings
ede629af1e2c platform/x86: think-lmi: Fix memory leak when showing
current settings
00c7b5f4ddc5 (origin/master, origin/HEAD) Merge tag 'input-for-v6.3-rc4'
of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dtor/input
......
Applying: platform/x86: think-lmi: Clean up display of current_value on
Thinkstation
error: patch failed: drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c:931
error: drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c: patch does not apply
> drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
> index 88da7bcb6ce9..ad952b49617b 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
> @@ -1459,10 +1459,10 @@ static int tlmi_analyze(void)
> * name string.
> * Try and pull that out if it's available.
> */
> - char *item, *optstart, *optend;
> + char *optitem, *optstart, *optend;
>
> - if (!tlmi_setting(setting->index, &item, LENOVO_BIOS_SETTING_GUID)) {
> - optstart = strstr(item, "[Optional:");
> + if (!tlmi_setting(setting->index, &optitem, LENOVO_BIOS_SETTING_GUID)) {
> + optstart = strstr(optitem, "[Optional:");
> if (optstart) {
> optstart += strlen("[Optional:");
> optend = strstr(optstart, "]");
> @@ -1471,6 +1471,7 @@ static int tlmi_analyze(void)
> kstrndup(optstart, optend - optstart,
> GFP_KERNEL);
> }
> + kfree(optitem);
> }
> }
> /*
Hi Mario
On Sun, Apr 2, 2023, at 10:04 AM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> On 4/1/23 13:43, Mark Pearson wrote:
>
>> My previous commit introduced a memory leak where the item allocated
>> from tlmi_setting was not freed.
>> This commit also renames it to avoid confusion with the similarly name
>> variable in the same function.
>>
>> Fixes: 8a02d70679fc ("platform/x86: think-lmi: Add possible_values for ThinkStation")
>> Reported-by: Mirsad Todorovac <[email protected]>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Pearson <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> This patch series builds on top of the proposed patch from Armin Wolf
>> "platform/x86: think-lmi: Fix memory leak when showing current settings"
>
> Which version of the patch did you do it from? I tried to apply v3 of
> Armin's patch
> to Linus' tree and then apply these two.
>
> The first applied, but the second had conflicts. Here was my base (with
> patch 1 in
> this series applied).
I was using v2 - but there shouldn't be any code changes between v3 and v2....so I hadn't re-based.
I'm working in the fixes branch from pdx86.git (with the aim of making it easier for Hans to pull in the patches). It's possible I've goofed somehow...though not sure how :(
I'll go double check - but likely won't be until tomorrow I'm afraid. I should probably just wait for the patch to be accepted and then work from there....
Mark
On 4/2/2023 14:23, Mark Pearson wrote:
> Hi Mario
>
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2023, at 10:04 AM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>> On 4/1/23 13:43, Mark Pearson wrote:
>>
>>> My previous commit introduced a memory leak where the item allocated
>>> from tlmi_setting was not freed.
>>> This commit also renames it to avoid confusion with the similarly name
>>> variable in the same function.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 8a02d70679fc ("platform/x86: think-lmi: Add possible_values for ThinkStation")
>>> Reported-by: Mirsad Todorovac <[email protected]>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/
>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Pearson <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> This patch series builds on top of the proposed patch from Armin Wolf
>>> "platform/x86: think-lmi: Fix memory leak when showing current settings"
>>
>> Which version of the patch did you do it from? I tried to apply v3 of
>> Armin's patch
>> to Linus' tree and then apply these two.
>>
>> The first applied, but the second had conflicts. Here was my base (with
>> patch 1 in
>> this series applied).
>
> I was using v2 - but there shouldn't be any code changes between v3 and v2....so I hadn't re-based.
>
> I'm working in the fixes branch from pdx86.git (with the aim of making it easier for Hans to pull in the patches). It's possible I've goofed somehow...though not sure how :(
>
> I'll go double check - but likely won't be until tomorrow I'm afraid. I should probably just wait for the patch to be accepted and then work from there....
>
> Mark
Hmm, I just tried on platform-x86/for-next.
commit e3271a5917d1501089b1a224d702aa053e2877f4 (tag:
platform-drivers-x86-v6.3-4, platform-x86/fixes)
I get the same problem there. I just applied Armin's single v3 patch
and then tried your series.
On Sun, Apr 2, 2023, at 6:17 PM, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> On 4/2/2023 14:23, Mark Pearson wrote:
>> Hi Mario
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 2, 2023, at 10:04 AM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>> On 4/1/23 13:43, Mark Pearson wrote:
>>>
>>>> My previous commit introduced a memory leak where the item allocated
>>>> from tlmi_setting was not freed.
>>>> This commit also renames it to avoid confusion with the similarly name
>>>> variable in the same function.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 8a02d70679fc ("platform/x86: think-lmi: Add possible_values for ThinkStation")
>>>> Reported-by: Mirsad Todorovac <[email protected]>
>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Pearson <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> This patch series builds on top of the proposed patch from Armin Wolf
>>>> "platform/x86: think-lmi: Fix memory leak when showing current settings"
>>>
>>> Which version of the patch did you do it from? I tried to apply v3 of
>>> Armin's patch
>>> to Linus' tree and then apply these two.
>>>
>>> The first applied, but the second had conflicts. Here was my base (with
>>> patch 1 in
>>> this series applied).
>>
>> I was using v2 - but there shouldn't be any code changes between v3 and v2....so I hadn't re-based.
>>
>> I'm working in the fixes branch from pdx86.git (with the aim of making it easier for Hans to pull in the patches). It's possible I've goofed somehow...though not sure how :(
>>
>> I'll go double check - but likely won't be until tomorrow I'm afraid. I should probably just wait for the patch to be accepted and then work from there....
>>
>> Mark
>
> Hmm, I just tried on platform-x86/for-next.
> commit e3271a5917d1501089b1a224d702aa053e2877f4 (tag:
> platform-drivers-x86-v6.3-4, platform-x86/fixes)
>
> I get the same problem there. I just applied Armin's single v3 patch
> and then tried your series.
You're absolutely right...it doesn't apply if I start again from clean.
I have no idea why - it must have been something I did when applying the patch in the first place but I'm at a loss as to what. Urgh :(
I'm regenerating the patch and will resend as a v2. Just going to run some tests as a sanity check first.
Mark