On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:15 PM, joeyli <jlee@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 08:28:57PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> acpi_evaluate_object() allocates memory. Free the buffer allocated
>> during acpi_nfit_add().
>>
>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Reported-by: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Reported-by: Haozhong Zhang <haozhong.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/nfit.c | 7 +++++--
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit.c
>> index 0497175ee6cb..008dbaaa2b75 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit.c
>> @@ -2414,12 +2414,15 @@ static int acpi_nfit_add(struct acpi_device *adev)
>> acpi_desc->nfit =
>> (struct acpi_nfit_header *)obj->buffer.pointer;
>> sz = obj->buffer.length;
>> + rc = acpi_nfit_init(acpi_desc, sz);
>> } else
>> dev_dbg(dev, "%s invalid type %d, ignoring _FIT\n",
>> __func__, (int) obj->type);
>> - }
>> + kfree(buf.pointer);
>> + acpi_desc->nfit = NULL;
>
> Looks "acpi_desc->nfit = NULL" statement will be removed in [PATCH 2/2]
> immediately. Why add it in PATCH 1?
I was debating it, but for code readability of -stable kernels (where
patch2 will not be included) I want to make it clear that nothing uses
the value of ->nfit outside of acpi_nfit_init().
>
>> + } else
>> + rc = acpi_nfit_init(acpi_desc, sz);
>>
>> - rc = acpi_nfit_init(acpi_desc, sz);
>> if (rc) {
>> nvdimm_bus_unregister(acpi_desc->nvdimm_bus);
>> return rc;
>>
>
> Other parts are no problem to me.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
