Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:04:03 +0100 (CET) | From | Julia Lawall <> | Subject | Re: question about drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c |
| |
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote: > > > The function at91_dt_node_to_map in drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c contains > > the following code: > > > > new_map = devm_kzalloc(pctldev->dev, sizeof(*new_map) * map_num, > > GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!new_map) > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > *map = new_map; > > *num_maps = map_num; > > > > /* create mux map */ > > parent = of_get_parent(np); > > if (!parent) { > > kfree(new_map); > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > > > This is clearly not correct, because the combination of devm_kzalloc and > > kfree risks creating a double free. > > Agreed, probably just some spurious leftover. > > > But I am not sure how best to fix it. > > Is the data structure intended to normally exist until the driver's remove > > function is called? If so, perhaps the devm_kzalloc is OK. If I just > > remove the kfree, then the structure will persist until the remove function > > is called, even though there was an error, which is perhaps not good. So I > > could change the kfree to devm_kfree? > > I was under the impression that if you exit the probe function > with a negative value anything allocated with devm_* was freed > immediately, that is atleast how it's described in > Documentation/driver-model/devres.txt > atleast that seems to be the intetion with the whole thing.
That is true, but I wasn't sure taht this function was part of the probe function. Its only reference is in:
static struct pinctrl_ops at91_pctrl_ops = { .get_groups_count = at91_get_groups_count, .get_group_name = at91_get_group_name, .get_group_pins = at91_get_group_pins, .pin_dbg_show = at91_pin_dbg_show, .dt_node_to_map = at91_dt_node_to_map, .dt_free_map = at91_dt_free_map, };
Working backwards, one possible call site is pinctrl_get, which is an exported function. Is it safe to assume that it will always be called from within a probe function?
thanks, julia
| |