Hi Mark,Jernej
> > Ahh.. indeed. Good catch !
> > How about to add such flag ?
> > This is just idea. No tested, No compiled, but can help you ?
>
> I think this makes sense as a patch. We might want to disallow
> allocating components as part of a bigger struct so everything is more
> consistent but that's a bigger thing.
(snip)
> I tested this patch and there is no crash anymore. If you will send it as a
> fix, you can add:
>
> Reported-by: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@xxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@xxxxxxxx>
previous my patch used new flag (= .alloced_component),
but I think it is not good idea.
And I noticed that snd_soc_add_component() is
also calling kfree(component) (= has same bug).
So how about below one ?
I want to post it instead of previous.
# I will go to ELC next week, thus posting patch will be
# 2weeks later
------------
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
index c0edac8..4a8de23 100644
--- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c
+++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
@@ -3476,7 +3476,6 @@ int snd_soc_add_component(struct device *dev,
err_cleanup:
snd_soc_component_cleanup(component);
err_free:
- kfree(component);
return ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(snd_soc_add_component);
@@ -3488,7 +3487,7 @@ int snd_soc_register_component(struct device *dev,
{
struct snd_soc_component *component;
- component = kzalloc(sizeof(*component), GFP_KERNEL);
+ component = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*component), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!component)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -3523,7 +3522,6 @@ static int __snd_soc_unregister_component(struct device *dev)
if (found) {
snd_soc_component_cleanup(component);
- kfree(component);
}
return found;
------------
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
