Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752232Ab3FKGg3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2013 02:36:29 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:34871 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751330Ab3FKGg2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2013 02:36:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 23:37:03 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Belisko Marek Cc: Alexey Khoroshilov , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, ldv-project@linuxtesting.org, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: ft1000: fix memory leak on error path in ft1000_probe() Message-ID: <20130611063703.GB2380@kroah.com> References: <1370892556-14503-1-git-send-email-khoroshilov@ispras.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2002 Lines: 45 On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:40:19PM +0200, Belisko Marek wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Alexey Khoroshilov > wrote: > > ft1000dev->tx_urb and ft1000dev->rx_urb are not deallocated > > if something goes wrong in ft1000_probe(). Also there is no > > check for success of urb allocation. The patch fixes the both issues. > > > > By the way, there is no sense in GFP_ATOMIC for urb allocation here, > > so it is changed to GFP_KERNEL. > > > > Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org). > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Khoroshilov > > --- > > drivers/staging/ft1000/ft1000-usb/ft1000_usb.c | 10 ++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ft1000/ft1000-usb/ft1000_usb.c b/drivers/staging/ft1000/ft1000-usb/ft1000_usb.c > > index 614db55..29a7cd2 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/ft1000/ft1000-usb/ft1000_usb.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/ft1000/ft1000-usb/ft1000_usb.c > > @@ -79,8 +79,12 @@ static int ft1000_probe(struct usb_interface *interface, > > ft1000dev->dev = dev; > > ft1000dev->status = 0; > > ft1000dev->net = NULL; > > - ft1000dev->tx_urb = usb_alloc_urb(0, GFP_ATOMIC); > > - ft1000dev->rx_urb = usb_alloc_urb(0, GFP_ATOMIC); > > + ft1000dev->tx_urb = usb_alloc_urb(0, GFP_KERNEL); > Can we check return value for tx here? If allocation fails it makes no sense to > try allocate also rx. Otherwise looks good. Thanks. > > + ft1000dev->rx_urb = usb_alloc_urb(0, GFP_KERNEL); > Same for rx here. > > + if (!ft1000dev->tx_urb || !ft1000dev->rx_urb) { Both of these allocations are checked here, so it's fine, no need to change anything. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/