On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 06:57:55PM +0200, Jonas Gorski wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 16:37, Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 15:20:14 +0200
> > Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > + d = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*d), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >
> > > &pdev->dev => dev
> >
> > will change.
> >
> > >
> > > > + if (!d)
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > + sk = kzalloc(sizeof(*sk), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >
> > > any reason not to devm_kzalloc this as well? Then you won't need to
> > > manually free it in the error cases.
> >
> > it has different life time than the device, so it may not allocated
> > via devm_kzalloc
> >
> > > > +static int ioc3kbd_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct ioc3kbd_data *d = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > +
> > > > + devm_free_irq(&pdev->dev, d->irq, d);
> > > > + serio_unregister_port(d->kbd);
> > > > + serio_unregister_port(d->aux);
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > and on that topic, won't you need to kfree d->kbd and d->aux here?
> >
> > that's done in serio_release_port() by the serio core.
>
> i see. But in that case, don't the kfree's after the
> serio_unregister_port's in the error path of the .probe function cause
> a double free?
Yes they do, we need to drop kfree()s from there. Nicely spotted.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
