Jim Meyering wrote: > * Incremental.c (Incremental): On sysfs_read failure, don't call > sysfs_free(sra) just before "goto out_unlock", since that very > same "sra" is freed the same way by the clean-up code below. Here it is again, but with the Signed-off-by line: >From 981af2b292448a9daa56af86b4c514ad9339665a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Meyering <meyering@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:08:25 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] avoid double-free upon "old buggy kernel" sysfs_read failure * Incremental.c (Incremental): On sysfs_read failure, don't call sysfs_free(sra) just before "goto out_unlock", since that very same "sra" is freed the same way by the clean-up code below. Signed-off-by: Jim Meyering <meyering@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Incremental.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Incremental.c b/Incremental.c index b457bf3..836a6f1 100644 --- a/Incremental.c +++ b/Incremental.c @@ -325,7 +325,6 @@ int Incremental(char *devname, int verbose, int runstop, fprintf(stderr, Name ": You have an old buggy kernel which cannot support\n" " --incremental reliably. Aborting.\n"); - sysfs_free(sra); rv = 2; goto out_unlock; } -- 1.7.9.1.266.g24ee9 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
