Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 13-06-17 09:00, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Peter S. Housel" <housel@xxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> An earlier change to this function (3bdae810721b) fixed a leak in the
>>> case of an unsuccessful call to brcmf_sdiod_buffrw(). However, the
>>> glom_skb buffer, used for emulating a scattering read, is never used
>>> or referenced after its contents are copied into the destination
>>> buffers, and therefore always needs to be freed by the end of the
>>> function.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 3bdae810721b ("brcmfmac: Fix glob_skb leak in brcmf_sdiod_recv_chain")
>>> Fixes: a413e39a38573 ("brcmfmac: fix brcmf_sdcard_recv_chain() for
>>> host without sg support")
>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 4.9.x-
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter S. Housel <housel@xxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Patch applied to wireless-drivers-next.git, thanks.
>
> Yikes. You say wireless-drivers-next? I should have tagged it better,
> but I would like to get this fix in 4.12 and stable.
Yes, always document clearly your intentions. I have so many patches
(and emails) to go through that I do not have much time for each patch
to figure out which tree it should go. And in this case the commit log
didn't mention any major breakage so I assumed this is for -next.
In theory I could cherry-pick the commit to wireless-drivers, but as
this doesn't look like a serious issue (no crashes or anything like
that), is it enough that this goes to 4.12 via stable tree? Just takes a
little longer, nothing else.
--
Kalle Valo
