On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:15 AM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > In netlbl_unlabel_defconf if netlbl_domhsh_add_default fails the > > > allocated entry should be released. > … > > That said, netlbl_unlabel_defconf() *should* clean up here just on > > principal if nothing else. > > How do you think about to add the tag “Fixes” then? >From what I've seen the "Fixes" tag is typically used by people who are backporting patches, e.g. the -stable folks, to help decide what they need to backport. As I mentioned in my previous email this missing free doesn't actually manifest itself as a practical leak on any of the existing kernels so there isn't a need to backport this patch. For that reason I would probably skip the "Fixes" metadata here, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to object if others want it. FWIW, I play things very conservatively when talking about backporting patches to stable kernels; if it doesn't fix a serious user-visible bug it shouldn't be backported IMHO. This patch is more of a conceptual fix than a practical fix. Not that there is anything wrong with this patch, I just think it isn't as critical as most people would think from reading "memory leak" in the subject line. Yes, there is a memory leak, but the kernel panics soon after so it's a bit moot. Further, even if the panic was somehow skipped (?) the memory leak only happens once during boot; the failed initialization is undoubtedly going to be far more damaging to the system than a few lost bytes of memory. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
