On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> io->name should be freed if ext2fs_file_open2() fails.
>
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> lib/ext2fs/inode_io.c | 4 +++-
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/inode_io.c b/lib/ext2fs/inode_io.c
> index 4faaa48..bc934d3 100644
> --- a/lib/ext2fs/inode_io.c
> +++ b/lib/ext2fs/inode_io.c
> @@ -157,11 +157,13 @@ static errcode_t inode_open(const char *name, int flags, io_channel *channel)
> &data->inode : 0, open_flags,
> &data->file);
> if (retval)
> - goto cleanup;
> + goto cleanup_name;
>
> *channel = io;
> return 0;
>
> +cleanup_name:
> + ext2fs_free_mem(&io->name);
> cleanup:
> if (data) {
> ext2fs_free_mem(&data);
>
Hmm, are those check-on-free everywhere really necessary ? Would not
make more sense to check it in ext2fs_free_mem and then when we hit
things like this patch is trying to fix, just remove the conditions ?
I am not suggesting anything like "go through all e2fsprogs and change
the conditions on free", but really change it when we poke the code anyway.
-Lukas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
