Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 09:35:13 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Cc:     gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jirislaby@kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, stefani@seibold.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: nozomi: Fix a resource leak in an error handling
 function
Message-ID: <20210510063513.GQ1955@kadam>
References: <4f0d2b3038e82f081d370ccb0cade3ad88463fe7.1620580838.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4f0d2b3038e82f081d370ccb0cade3ad88463fe7.1620580838.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 07:22:33PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> A 'request_irq()' call is not balanced by a corresponding 'free_irq()' in
> the error handling path, as already done in the remove function.
> 
> Add it.
> 
> Fixes: 9842c38e9176 ("kfifo: fix warn_unused_result")
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
> ---
> I also wonder if the loop above is correct. The 'i < MAX_PORT' looks really
> spurious to me.
> 'tty_port_destroy' can be called twice for the same entry (once before
> branching in the error handling path, and once in here) and
> 'tty_unregister_device'/'tty_port_destroy' will be called on entries
> that have not been 'tty_port_init'ed or 'tty_port_register_device'd.
> I don't know if it may be an issue.


Calling tty_port_destroy() twice is fine, but I think calling
tty_unregister_device() for unregistered devices will lead to a NULL
dereference in cdev_del().

regards,
dan carpenter