> Quoting Yi Wang (2018-10-29 01:31:47)
> > 'onecell' is malloced in clk_boston_setup(), but is not freed
> > before leaving from the error handling cases.
>
> How did you find this? Visual inspection? Some coccinelle script?
Smatch report this:
drivers/clk/imgtec/clk-boston.c:76 clk_boston_setup() warn: possible memory leak of 'onecell'
drivers/clk/imgtec/clk-boston.c:83 clk_boston_setup() warn: possible memory leak of 'onecell'
drivers/clk/imgtec/clk-boston.c:90 clk_boston_setup() warn: possible memory leak of 'onecell'
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yi Wang <wang.yi59@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2: fix syntax issue in comment, thanks to Sergei.
> >
> > drivers/clk/imgtec/clk-boston.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/imgtec/clk-boston.c b/drivers/clk/imgtec/clk-boston.c
> > index 15af423..f5d54a6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/imgtec/clk-boston.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/imgtec/clk-boston.c
> > @@ -73,27 +73,32 @@ static void __init clk_boston_setup(struct device_node *np)
> > hw = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "input", NULL, 0, in_freq);
> > if (IS_ERR(hw)) {
> > pr_err("failed to register input clock: %ld\n", PTR_ERR(hw));
> > - return;
> > + goto error;
> > }
> > onecell->hws[BOSTON_CLK_INPUT] = hw;
> >
> > hw = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "sys", "input", 0, sys_freq);
> > if (IS_ERR(hw)) {
> > pr_err("failed to register sys clock: %ld\n", PTR_ERR(hw));
> > - return;
> > + goto error;
> > }
> > onecell->hws[BOSTON_CLK_SYS] = hw;
> >
> > hw = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "cpu", "input", 0, cpu_freq);
> > if (IS_ERR(hw)) {
> > pr_err("failed to register cpu clock: %ld\n", PTR_ERR(hw));
> > - return;
> > + goto error;
> > }
> > onecell->hws[BOSTON_CLK_CPU] = hw;
> >
> > err = of_clk_add_hw_provider(np, of_clk_hw_onecell_get, onecell);
> > if (err)
> > pr_err("failed to add DT provider: %d\n", err);
> > +
> > + return;
> > +
> > +error:
> > + kfree(onecell);
>
> Ok, sure. But then clks are still left registered on failure?
Yeah, but this patch does not change the original flow of the function, so I suppose
if you deem this is not proper, it's better to improve that in another patch, what do
you think?
---
Best wishes
Yi Wang
