Re: fixes for ioctl() of usbtmc in testing tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Zitat von Oliver Neukum <oneukum@xxxxxxxx>:

On Mo, 2018-09-24 at 10:56 +0000, guido@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Zitat von Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > how should I mark fixes intended for the testing branch?
> > I got one for the usbtmc driver.
>
> Just send it like normal.  You can do a "Fixes:" tag with the sha1, that
> should be fine.  I need to push out my testing branch now, 0-day seems
> to be stalled :(
>

Big sorry! There is a superflous kmalloc line 1270 til 1272.
Shall I send the fix?

Damn. That is the same allocation repeated, not a reuse of the buffer.
I'll resend. There is also a leak in the error case.


I do not see a leak in the error case. kfree(NULL) should be ok.
Sorry, I referred the line 1270 to the mail of Dan Carpenter. I mean the
lines:

diff --git a/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c b/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
index 0fcb81a1399b..dfbcf418dad7 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
@@ -1895,10 +1895,6 @@ static int usbtmc_ioctl_request(struct usbtmc_device_data *data,
        if (res)
                return -EFAULT;

-       buffer = kmalloc(request.req.wLength, GFP_KERNEL);
-       if (!buffer)
-               return -ENOMEM;
-
        if (request.req.wLength > USBTMC_BUFSIZE)
                return -EMSGSIZE;

@Oliver: Where do send (resend) the fix? Is this an official fix or
do you just fix your internal build system?
And I still have to make an official fix, isn't it?

Guido





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux