Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:36:39 +0900 | From | Chanwoo Choi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [extcon]:remove freed groups caused the panic or warning in unregister flow |
| |
On 11/04/2013 11:07 AM, Wang, Xiaoming wrote: > Dear Choi > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chanwoo Choi [mailto:cw00.choi@samsung.com] > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 9:43 AM > To: Wang, Xiaoming > Cc: myungjoo.ham@samsung.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Liu, Chuansheng; Zhang, Dongxing > Subject: Re: [PATCH] [extcon]:remove freed groups caused the panic or warning in unregister flow > > Hi Wang, > >> drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c | 3 ++- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c >> b/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c index 148382f..48f4669 100644 >> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c >> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c >> @@ -794,6 +794,8 @@ void extcon_dev_unregister(struct extcon_dev *edev) >> return; >> } >> >> + device_unregister(edev->dev); >> + >> if (edev->mutually_exclusive && edev->max_supported) { >> for (index = 0; edev->mutually_exclusive[index]; >> index++) >> @@ -814,7 +816,6 @@ void extcon_dev_unregister(struct extcon_dev *edev) >> if (switch_class) >> class_compat_remove_link(switch_class, edev->dev, NULL); #endif >> - device_unregister(edev->dev); >> put_device(edev->dev); >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(extcon_dev_unregister); >> > > I think we could only apply following patch instead of moving the position of device_unregister(). > > diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c index 148382f..ff27b19 100644 > --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c > +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c > @@ -805,10 +805,8 @@ void extcon_dev_unregister(struct extcon_dev *edev) > for (index = 0; index < edev->max_supported; index++) > kfree(edev->cables[index].attr_g.name); > > - if (edev->max_supported) { > - kfree(edev->extcon_dev_type.groups); > + if (edev->max_supported) > kfree(edev->cables); > - } > > #if defined(CONFIG_ANDROID) > if (switch_class) > > Thanks, > Chanwoo Choi > > I don't agree with you. > Why do not you want moving the position of device_unregister()? > It will cause the memory leak if has not kfree edev->extcon_dev_type.groups as your patch do firstly. And if you think kfree edev->extcon_dev_type.groups is meaningless well then kfree edev->extcon_dev_type.groups in function exton_dev_register (line 756)also should be removed I think. What do you think? >
As you comment, my opinion has memory leak problem. My mistake. But, I prefer to call 'device_unregister' at the end of extcon_dev_unregister(). To resolve kernel panic, I think we could use 'devm_kzalloc' instead of kzalloc/kfree. What is your opinion about my approach?
Thanks, Chanwoo Choi
| |