On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:03 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:25:02AM -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> > If the device register fails, free the allocated memory before
> > returning.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices")
> > ---
> > lib/kunit/device.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/device.c b/lib/kunit/device.c
> > index 25c81ed465fb..d8c09dcb3e79 100644
> > --- a/lib/kunit/device.c
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/device.c
> > @@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ static struct kunit_device *kunit_device_register_internal(struct kunit *test,
> > err = device_register(&kunit_dev->dev);
> > if (err) {
> > put_device(&kunit_dev->dev);
> > + kfree(kunit_dev);
>
> This still looks wrong, the release function for the device should free
> the memory here, not this kfree, as the reference count in the embedded
> 'struct device' handles the memory logic for the whole structure (if
> not, then something is REALLY wrong...)
>
> You _do_ have a release function for the device, right? If not, you
> should be getting loud messages in the kernel log when releasing a
> device here.
>
Ok, I got it. Yes, there is a release function. So this patch is
wrong, ignore it. Should I send a v5 with only the other patch?
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
