Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <0f9d668e8ed77ef17ba029e15b52fa817e49dbdb.camel@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: intel-ish-hid: fixes incorrect error handling
From:   Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
Cc:     bianpan2016@163.com,
        "open list:HID CORE LAYER" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Sun, 09 Dec 2018 19:20:18 -0800
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1812092144440.17216@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
References: <1542847953-127599-1-git-send-email-bianpan2016@163.com>
         <CAO-hwJJDhtNqy6gc9OJ+rHnJimrQeAoxxkay5XnfXjxMtvEufQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1812092144440.17216@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 2018-12-09 at 21:45 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> 
> > > The memory chunk allocated by hid_allocate_device() should be
> > > released
> > > by hid_destroy_device(), not kfree().
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 0b28cb4bcb1("HID: intel-ish-hid: ISH HID client driver")
> > > Signed-off-by: Pan Bian <bianpan2016@163.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp-hid.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp-hid.c
> > > b/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp-hid.c
> > > index cd23903..e918d78 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp-hid.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp-hid.c
> > > @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ int ishtp_hid_probe(unsigned int cur_hid_dev,
> > >  err_hid_device:
> > >         kfree(hid_data);
> > >  err_hid_data:
> > > -       kfree(hid);
> > > +       hid_destroy_device(hid);
> > 
> > Looks good to me. Srinivas, any comments?
> > FWIW:
> > Reviewed-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
> > 
> > Jiri, do you think we should send this one as 4.20/fixes material
> > or
> > wait for 4.21?
> 
> Given that this has been around since 4.9, I wouldn't be devastated
> if it 
> lands only in next merge window. So I'd just put it to 4.20/fixes and
> wait 
> for other more serious trigger for sending that to Linus eventually.
> 
Agree.

Thanks,
Srinivas

> Thanks,
>