On 2023/1/18 17:45, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 12:38 +0800, Zhengchao Shao wrote:--- a/net/mac80211/main.c +++ b/net/mac80211/main.c @@ -1326,6 +1326,7 @@ int ieee80211_register_hw(struct ieee80211_hw *hw) hw->rate_control_algorithm); rtnl_unlock(); if (result < 0) { + ieee80211_txq_teardown_flows(local); wiphy_debug(local->hw.wiphy, "Failed to initialize rate control algorithm\n"); goto fail_rate; @@ -1364,6 +1365,7 @@ int ieee80211_register_hw(struct ieee80211_hw *hw)sband = kmemdup(sband, sizeof(*sband), GFP_KERNEL);if (!sband) { + ieee80211_txq_teardown_flows(local); result = -ENOMEM; goto fail_rate; }I don't understand - we have a fail_rate label here where we free everything. What if we get to fail_wiphy_register, don't we leak it in the same way? johannes
Hi johannes: Thank you for your review. Sorry it took so long to reply. The fail_rate label does not release the resources applied for in the ieee80211_txq_setup_flows(). Or maybe I missed something? The fail_wiphy_register label will call ieee80211_remove_interfaces()->ieee80211_txq_teardown_flows() to release resources. So it is OK. Zhengchao Shao
