Le 07/01/2025 à 02:19, Ma Ke a écrit :
Christophe JAILLET<christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ma Ke <make24@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
When auxiliary_device_add() returns error and then calls
auxiliary_device_uninit(), the callback function
gp_auxiliary_device_release() calls kfree() to free memory. Do not
call kfree() again in the error handling path.
Fix this by skipping the redundant kfree().
Found by code review.
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fixes: 393fc2f5948f ("misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: load auxiliary bus driver for the PIO function in the multi-function endpoint of pci1xxxx device.")
Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make24@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gp.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gp.c b/drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gp.c
index 32af2b14ff34..fbd712938bdc 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gp.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gp.c
@@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ static int gp_aux_bus_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id
err_aux_dev_add_1:
auxiliary_device_uninit(&aux_bus->aux_device_wrapper[1]->aux_dev);
+ goto err_aux_dev_add_0;
err_aux_dev_init_1:
ida_free(&gp_client_ida, aux_bus->aux_device_wrapper[1]->aux_dev.id);
@@ -120,6 +121,7 @@ static int gp_aux_bus_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id
err_aux_dev_add_0:
auxiliary_device_uninit(&aux_bus->aux_device_wrapper[0]->aux_dev);
+ goto err_ret;
err_aux_dev_init_0:
ida_free(&gp_client_ida, aux_bus->aux_device_wrapper[0]->aux_dev.id);
Hi,
This is strange because the nearly same patch is in -next since June
2024 ([1])
It is also in Linux since at least 6.10 ([2])
In [1] and [2], there is also a new err_ret label, which is not part of
your patch.
On which tree are you working?
Is your patch compile tested?
CJ
Thank you for your response. I discovered the aforementioned bug in
Linux kernel v6.4.16 (the latest v6.4). It appears that the fix was
not completed in the latest version of v6.4. I have also checked the
link you mentioned and saw that the issue has been fixed in v6.10. I
realize that I omitted the final jump patch in the patch v1 submitted,
and I will perfect it in patch v2. Thank you for your suggestion.
v6.4 is not supported any more, so an updated patch would never be applied.
See active branches on https://www.kernel.org/.
Anyway, when don't working on a recent tree, you should tell it, because
no one can guess that your patch is related to something old.
> I realize that I omitted the final jump
So I guess, that you not compile tested your patch.
You should never do that, event when the change looks trivial.
CJ
