Re: [PATCH v2] nvmem: core: fix possibly memleak when use nvmem_cell_info_to_nvmem_cell()

[Srinivas Kandagatla]

On 23/09/2020 17:23, Vadym Kochan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 04:51:06PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> > On 23/09/2020 15:51, Vadym Kochan wrote:
> > > > -       return nvmem_cell_write(&cell, buf, cell.bytes);
> > > > +       rc = nvmem_cell_write(&cell, buf, cell.bytes);
> > > > +       if (rc)
> > > > +               kfree_const(cell->name);
> > > > +
> > > > +       return rc;
> > > >    }
> > > >    EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nvmem_device_cell_write);
> > > >    ------------------------>cut<---------------------------
> > > >
> > > > --srini
> > > But is it really needed to kstrdup(cell->name) for nvmem_device_cell_{read,write} ?
> > This boils down to if we want to use same api to parse nvmem_cell_info or
> > not!
> >
> > If we want to keep this simple, we can either explicitly add free for
> > successful caller to nvmem_cell_info_to_nvmem_cell()!
> >
> > Or
> >
> > use something like what you did, but new api needs more clarity!
> > May be renaming __nvmem_cell_info_to_nvmem_cell to
> > nvmem_cell_info_to_nvmem_cell_no_alloc would clarify that a bit!
>
> Naming is most difficult thing, what about __nvmem_cell_info_to_nvmem_cell_{unsafe,nodup}() ?
> At least this is an indication to be carefully here.

nvmem_cell_info_to_nvmem_cell_nodup() should be good!

--srini
> > Also can you make sure that linewrapping on function names be inline with
> > existing code.
> >
> > Please send v3 with that changes!
> >
> >
> > --srini
> > > It is used only for log error in case the unaligned access did not
> > > pass the check