On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 4:15 PM Lad, Prabhakar
<prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Young,
>
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:49 AM Young Xiao <92siuyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > If vpif_probe() fails on v4l2_device_register() and vpif_probe_complete(),
> > then memory allocated at initialize_vpif() for global vpif_obj.dev[i]
> > become unreleased.
> >
> > The patch adds deallocation of vpif_obj.dev[i] on the error path.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Young Xiao <92siuyang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/platform/davinci/vpif_capture.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/davinci/vpif_capture.c b/drivers/media/platform/davinci/vpif_capture.c
> > index b5aacb0..277d500 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/platform/davinci/vpif_capture.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/davinci/vpif_capture.c
> > @@ -1385,6 +1385,14 @@ static int initialize_vpif(void)
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > +static void free_vpif_objs(void)
> > +{
> function could be made inline.
>
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < VPIF_DISPLAY_MAX_DEVICES; i++)
>
> VPIF_DISPLAY_MAX_DEVICES ? this should be VPIF_CAPTURE_MAX_DEVICES
>
> > + kfree(vpif_obj.dev[i]);
> > +}
> > +
> > static int vpif_async_bound(struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier,
> > struct v4l2_subdev *subdev,
> > struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd)
> > @@ -1654,7 +1662,7 @@ static __init int vpif_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > err = v4l2_device_register(vpif_dev, &vpif_obj.v4l2_dev);
> > if (err) {
> > v4l2_err(vpif_dev->driver, "Error registering v4l2 device\n");
> > - goto cleanup;
> > + goto vpif_free;
> > }
> >
> > while ((res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, res_idx))) {
> > @@ -1701,7 +1709,10 @@ static __init int vpif_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > "registered sub device %s\n",
> > subdevdata->name);
> > }
> > - vpif_probe_complete();
> > + err = vpif_probe_complete();
> > + if (err) {
> > + goto probe_subdev_out;
> > + }
>
> No need for { and } as per kernel coding style.
Sorry, I can not get your point here.
There is no need to check the return value of vpif_probe_complete(), isn't it?
So, we just fix the memory leak in the error path of v4l2_device_register()?
>
> > } else {
> > vpif_obj.notifier.ops = &vpif_async_ops;
> > err = v4l2_async_notifier_register(&vpif_obj.v4l2_dev,
> > @@ -1720,6 +1731,8 @@ static __init int vpif_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > kfree(vpif_obj.sd);
> > vpif_unregister:
> > v4l2_device_unregister(&vpif_obj.v4l2_dev);
> > +vpif_free:
> > + free_vpif_objs();
> > cleanup:
> > v4l2_async_notifier_cleanup(&vpif_obj.notifier);
> >
> > @@ -1748,8 +1761,8 @@ static int vpif_remove(struct platform_device *device)
> > ch = vpif_obj.dev[i];
> > /* Unregister video device */
> > video_unregister_device(&ch->video_dev);
> > - kfree(vpif_obj.dev[i]);
> > }
> > + free_vpif_objs();
>
> no need for this change, leave it as it is.
>
> Cheers,
> Prabhakar Lad
--
Best regards!
Young
-----------------------------------------------------------
