Re: [PATCH] [media] s2255drv: fix memory leak s2255_probe()

[DaeSeok Youn]

Hi, Sakari

2014-04-15 18:33 GMT+09:00 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx>:
> Hi Daeseok,
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 01:49:34PM +0900, Daeseok Youn wrote:
>>
>> smatch says:
>>  drivers/media/usb/s2255/s2255drv.c:2246 s2255_probe() warn:
>> possible memory leak of 'dev'
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daeseok Youn <daeseok.youn@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/media/usb/s2255/s2255drv.c |    1 +
>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/s2255/s2255drv.c b/drivers/media/usb/s2255/s2255drv.c
>> index 1d4ba2b..8aca3ef 100644
>> --- a/drivers/media/usb/s2255/s2255drv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/media/usb/s2255/s2255drv.c
>> @@ -2243,6 +2243,7 @@ static int s2255_probe(struct usb_interface *interface,
>>       dev->cmdbuf = kzalloc(S2255_CMDBUF_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
>>       if (dev->cmdbuf == NULL) {
>>               s2255_dev_err(&interface->dev, "out of memory\n");
>> +             kfree(dev);
>>               return -ENOMEM;
>>       }
>>
>
> The rest of the function already uses goto and labels for error handling. I
> think it'd take adding one more. dev is correctly released in other error
> cases.
I am not sure that adding a new label for error handling when
allocation for dev->cmdbuf is failed.
I think it is ok to me. :-) Because I think it is not good adding a
new label and use goto statement for this.

Thanks for review.

Regards,
Daeseok Youn.
>
> What do you think?
>
> --
> Kind regards,
>
> Sakari Ailus
> e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx     XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/