Hi Viresh,
On 04/02/2018 01:32 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 26-03-18, 16:52, Suman Anna wrote:
>> Commit 05829d9431df ("cpufreq: ti-cpufreq: kfree opp_data when
>> failure") has fixed a memory leak in the failure path, however
>> kmemleak still keeps reporting a leak even on successful probes.
>> This is a false-positive and is mostly a result of the opp_data
>
> I don't agree to this reasoning for this particular patch. The code is just fine
> and kmemleak is something that requires a fix.
>
>> variable not being stored anywhere in the probe function. The
>> patch also returned a positive value on the get_cpu_device()
>> failure instead of a negative value.
>
> Maybe that could have been fixed in a separate patch, cc'ing stable kernels as
> well.
>
>> unreferenced object 0xecae4d80 (size 64):
>> comm "swapper/0", pid 1, jiffies 4294937673 (age 154.420s)
>> hex dump (first 32 bytes):
>> 10 40 d9 ee 74 b7 db ee 00 24 ac ec 20 a3 ea c0 .@..t....$.. ...
>> 00 26 ac ec 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .&..............
>> backtrace:
>> [<ec080d62>] platform_drv_probe+0x50/0xac
>> [<cbde8566>] driver_probe_device+0x24c/0x330
>> [<a5818eb4>] bus_for_each_drv+0x54/0xb8
>> [<2c6f7021>] __device_attach+0xcc/0x13c
>> [<a04478a2>] bus_probe_device+0x88/0x90
>> [<b322c963>] device_add+0x38c/0x5b4
>> [<6f1af99b>] platform_device_add+0x100/0x220
>> [<cef42bca>] platform_device_register_full+0xf0/0x104
>> [<4d492439>] ti_cpufreq_init+0x44/0x6c
>> [<81222e89>] do_one_initcall+0x48/0x190
>> [<3bebf42a>] kernel_init_freeable+0x1f4/0x2b8
>> [<230ad7df>] kernel_init+0x8/0x110
>> [<43a165c3>] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x20
>> [< (null)>] (null)
>> [<87288797>] 0xffffffff
>>
>> Fix both issues by replacing the previous logic by using the devres
>> managed API for allocating the opp_data variable, and simplifying
>> the get_cpu_device() failure return path.
>>
>> Fixes: 05829d9431df ("cpufreq: ti-cpufreq: kfree opp_data when failure")
>> Cc: Zumeng Chen <zumeng.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c | 7 ++-----
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
>> index a099b7bf74cd..7d353a21935b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ static int ti_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> if (!match)
>> return -ENODEV;
>>
>> - opp_data = kzalloc(sizeof(*opp_data), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + opp_data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*opp_data), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!opp_data)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> @@ -226,8 +226,7 @@ static int ti_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> opp_data->cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(0);
>> if (!opp_data->cpu_dev) {
>> pr_err("%s: Failed to get device for CPU0\n", __func__);
>> - ret = ENODEV;
>> - goto free_opp_data;
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> }
>>
>> opp_data->opp_node = dev_pm_opp_of_get_opp_desc_node(opp_data->cpu_dev);
>> @@ -285,8 +284,6 @@ static int ti_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>
>> fail_put_node:
>> of_node_put(opp_data->opp_node);
>> -free_opp_data:
>> - kfree(opp_data);
>>
>> return ret;
>> }
>
> I am fine with the diff though, as that makes sense. So maybe do this ?
>
> - send separate patch for ENODEV thing
> - and another patch to move to devres with a different reason than fixing false
> positive
OK, thanks for your comments. Will split this patch and post the new
patches.
regards
Suman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
