On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:30:11PM +0000, Richard Mortimer wrote: > > > On 17/01/2013 11:56, Cong Ding wrote: > >On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:41:59AM +0000, Richard Mortimer wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 16/01/2013 22:01, Cong Ding wrote: > >>>the variable iommu and strbuf are not freed if it goes to error. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Cong Ding <dinggnu@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>--- > >>> arch/sparc/kernel/sbus.c | 2 ++ > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > >>> > >>>diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/sbus.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/sbus.c > >>>index 1271b3a..78aa26b 100644 > >>>--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/sbus.c > >>>+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/sbus.c > >>>@@ -656,6 +656,8 @@ static void __init sbus_iommu_init(struct platform_device *op) > >>> return; > >>> > >>> fatal_memory_error: > >>>+ kfree(strbuf); > >> > >>strbuf will be uninitialized if the iommu allocation fails. I don't > >>have a particular preference for how to fix this but tend to dislike > >>initial assignment with NULL because it hides other control flow > >>issues. > >Sorry I didn't notice strbuf will be uninitialized here. But if we don't > >initially assign a NULL value to strbuf, I cannot find a way to handle it > >besides the first version patch. Did you have any suggestions? For me, I like > >the first version. > > Two thoughts... > > 1 - just use a goto target for the iommu allocation failure and make > that skip the strbuf free call. The others use the existing > fatal_memory_error label. this looks ugly. If we do in this way, why not version 1? > > 2 - Move the strbuf kzalloc up 2 lines so that it occurs before the > test for iommu. > > 2b - In case (2) above the failure test could be changed to > if (!iommu || !strbuf) > to remove duplication of goto. I will send a new version by using this solution. Thanks, - cong -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
