Re: [PATCH 1/5] can: kvaser_usb: Avoid double free on URB submission failures

From: Ahmed S. Darwish
Date: Mon Mar 09 2015 - 08:39:44 EST

Hi Marc,

(Sorry for the late reply as I was out of town!)

On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 10:15:45AM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 02/26/2015 04:20 PM, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > From: Ahmed S. Darwish <ahmed.darwish@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Upon a URB submission failure, the driver calls usb_free_urb()
> > but then manually frees the URB buffer by itself. Meanwhile
> > usb_free_urb() has alredy freed out that transfer buffer since
> > we're the only code path holding a reference to this URB.
> >
> > Remove two of such invalid manual free().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <ahmed.darwish@xxxxxxxxx>
> Applied 1+2 and added stable on Cc. Can you please shuffle the remaining
> patches, so that patch 5 comes first, then 4 and 3 as the last patch. As
> 5 is a bugfix it should go into stable, while 3 isn't.
> You can base your series on the can/testing branch.

Did not care much about the bugfixes order this time as the patches
themselves will not apply cleanly (or at all) to -stable due to the
addition of UsbCAN-II code, which all -stable kernels do not have.
Thus I guess I'll need to submit a different patch series for -stable
with patches 1, 2, and 5 -- rebased.

Nonetheless, you're correct that having the bugfixes (1,2,5), then the
optimization (4), then the janitorial fix (3) is the logical order for
history & bisection sake. So.. I'll re-order the patches, individually
test with the new order, and re-submit over can/testing.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at