On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 10:23:10PM +0800, nanfengwq@xxxxxxxx wrote: > Hello： > I have discovered a risk of memory leakage in ncm_wrap_ntb() under USB ncm mode in kernel 5.15, and I have fixed it. > Please help me review it. > > If this modification is effective, it can also be integrated into other kernel versions, such as kernel 4.14, and so on. > > The logic of a memory leak is as follows: > > If the return value skb2 of package_for_tx() is not NULL, and the return value ncm->skb_tx_data of alloc_skb() is NULL, then the code will go to err, where there is no processing of skb2, resulting in a memory leak in skb2. > > > Thank you. > > > > Hi, This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux kernel tree. You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) as indicated below: - Your patch did not apply to any known trees that Greg is in control of. Possibly this is because you made it against Linus's tree, not the linux-next tree, which is where all of the development for the next version of the kernel is at. Please refresh your patch against the linux-next tree, or even better yet, the development tree specified in the MAINTAINERS file for the subsystem you are submitting a patch for, and resend it. - You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or possibly, any description at all, in the email body. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what is needed in order to properly describe the change. - You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg, and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what a proper Subject: line should look like. - It looks like you did not use your "real" name for the patch on either the Signed-off-by: line, or the From: line (both of which have to match). Please read the kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for how to do this correctly. If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received from other developers. thanks, greg k-h's patch email bot
