lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] pinctrl: devicetree: fix refcount leak in pinctrl_dt_to_map()
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 08:12:23PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 06:38:46PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 06:30:59PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 06:53:28PM +0800, Zeng Heng wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > for (state = 0; ; state++) {
> > > > /* Retrieve the pinctrl-* property */
> > > > propname = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "pinctrl-%d", state);
> > > > - if (!propname)
> > > > - return -ENOMEM;
> > > > + if (!propname) {
> > > > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > > + goto err;
> > > > + }
> > > > prop = of_find_property(np, propname, &size);
> > > > kfree(propname);
> > > > if (!prop) {
> > > > if (state == 0) {
> > > > - of_node_put(np);
> > > > - return -ENODEV;
> > > > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > > > + goto err;
> > >
> > > Has it been tested? How on earth is this a correct change?
> > >
> > > We iterate over state numbers until we have properties available. This chunk is
> > > _successful_ exit path, we may not free parsed maps! Am I wrong?
> >
> > In this path state == 0 so we haven't had a successful iteration yet.
>
> Ah, indeed, this is not a status. Okay, makes sense, but calling that free
> function for the purpose of the putting of_node seems an overkill...

Sure, that's one way to look at it, but it's suspicious looking when
there is a direct return which is surrounded by gotos. As I write this,
I remember that Smatch has a warning for code like that.

Probably we should add a comment to say:

/* Return -ENODEV if the property 'pinctrl-0' is not present. */

regards,
dan carpenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-04-17 19:50    [W:0.102 / U:0.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site