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:   Fri, 7 Jun 2019 20:07:17 +0800
From:   Gen Zhang <blackgod016574@gmail.com>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, mturquette@baylibre.com,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: fix a missing-free bug in clk_cpy_name()
Message-ID: <20190607120717.GA3109@zhanggen-UX430UQ>
References: <20190531011424.GA4374@zhanggen-UX430UQ>
 <eb8e2d33-e8f7-93a5-c8bc-98731c0d63b6@suse.cz>
 <20190605160043.GA4351@zhanggen-UX430UQ>
 <20190606201646.B4CC4206BB@mail.kernel.org>
 <20190607015258.GA2660@zhanggen-UX430UQ>
 <e5b4639b-3077-59bb-6383-0c2bccdd9191@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e5b4639b-3077-59bb-6383-0c2bccdd9191@suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 11:10:37AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 07. 06. 19, 3:52, Gen Zhang wrote:
> >>>>> @@ -3491,6 +3492,8 @@ static int clk_core_populate_parent_map(struct clk_core *core)
> >>>>>                             kfree_const(parents[i].name);
> >>>>>                             kfree_const(parents[i].fw_name);
> >>>>>                     } while (--i >= 0);
> >>>>> +                   kfree_const(parent->name);
> >>>>> +                   kfree_const(parent->fw_name);
> >>>>
> >>>> Both of them were just freed in the loop above, no?
> >>> for (i = 0, parent = parents; i < num_parents; i++, parent++)
> >>> Is 'parent' the same as the one from the loop above?
> >>
> >> Yes. Did it change somehow?
> > parent++?
> 
> parent++ is done after the loop body. Or what do you mean?
> 
> >>> Moreover, should 'parents[i].name' and 'parents[i].fw_name' be freed by
> >>> kfree_const()?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes? They're allocated with kstrdup_const() in clk_cpy_name(), or
> >> they're NULL by virtue of the kcalloc and then kfree_const() does
> >> nothing.
> > I re-examined clk_cpy_name(). They are the second parameter of 
> > clk_cpy_name(). The first parameter is allocated, not the second one.
> > So 'parent->name' and 'parent->fw_name' should be freed, not 
> > 'parents[i].name' or 'parents[i].fw_name'. Am I totally misunderstanding
> > this clk_cpy_name()? :-(
> 
> The second parameter (the source) is parent_data[i].*, not parents[i].*
> (the destination). parent->fw_name and parent->name are properly freed
> in the do {} while loop as parents[i].name and parents[i].fw_name, given
> i hasn't changed yet. I am not sure what you mean at all. Are you
> uncertain about the C code flow?
> 
> thanks,
> -- 
> js
> suse labs
Thanks your patient explainaton. I think I need some time to figure out
this part of code.

Thanks
Gen