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;
Date:   Wed, 3 Apr 2019 15:26:26 -0700
From:   Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: alienware-wmi: fix kfree on potentially
 uninitialized pointer
Message-ID: <20190403222626.GA11745@wrath>
References: <20190330001712.8923-1-colin.king@canonical.com>
 <20190403220200.GC39081@wrath>
 <424c2bba-1e17-3131-c15b-44462c57e22d@canonical.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <424c2bba-1e17-3131-c15b-44462c57e22d@canonical.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 11:05:12PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 03/04/2019 23:02, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 12:17:12AM +0000, Colin King wrote:
> >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> >>
> >> Currently the kfree of output.pointer can be potentially freeing
> >> an uninitalized pointer in the case where out_data is NULL. Fix this
> >> by reworking the case where out_data is not-null to perform the
> >> ACPI status check and also the kfree of outpoint.pointer in one block
> >> and hence ensuring the pointer is only freed when it has been used.
> >>
> >> Also replace the if (ptr != NULL) idiom with just if (ptr).
> >>
> >> Fixes: ff0e9f26288d ("platform/x86: alienware-wmi: Correct a memory leak")
> >> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > 
> > Thanks for the catch Colin, queued for testing.
> > 
> > Did you trigger this error or detect it via review or static analysis?
> > 
> Static analysis, I'm now running a licensed version of Coverity on one
> of our servers.

We typically include the tool used to identify such bugs, and I see several such
tags for Coverity in the logs. Was there a reason not to include that tag? If
just an oversight, can you provide that tag and I'll amend the commit.

-- 
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center