Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 11:47:09 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc:     Zhang Changzhong <zhangchangzhong@huawei.com>,
        Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sfc: fix potential memleak in
 __ef100_hard_start_xmit()
Message-ID: <Y3yanROxeZDR+aNG@unreal>
References: <1668671409-10909-1-git-send-email-zhangchangzhong@huawei.com>
 <Y3YctdnKDDvikQcl@unreal>
 <efedaa0e-33ce-24c6-bb9d-8f9b5c4a1c38@huawei.com>
 <Y3YxlxPIiw43QiKE@unreal>
 <Y3dNP6iEj2YyEwqJ@gmail.com>
 <Y3e8wEZme3OpMZKV@unreal>
 <0a568e890497f4066128b1ce957904e0c5540c16.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0a568e890497f4066128b1ce957904e0c5540c16.camel@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 09:28:42AM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 19:11 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 09:15:43AM +0000, Martin Habets wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 03:05:27PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > Please take a look __ef100_enqueue_skb() and see if it frees SKB on
> > > > error or not. If not, please fix it.
> > > 
> > > That function looks ok to me, but I appreciate the extra eyes on it.
> > 
> > __ef100_enqueue_skb() has the following check in error path:
> > 
> >   498 err:
> >   499         efx_enqueue_unwind(tx_queue, old_insert_count);
> >   500         if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(skb))
> >   501                 dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
> >   502
> > 
> > The issue is that skb is never error or null here and this "if" is
> > actually always true and can be deleted.
> 
> I think that such additional change could be suite for a different net-
> next patch, while this -net patch could land as is, @Leon: do you
> agree?
> 

Sure, thanks,
Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>