Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 2/3] test_firmware: fix a memory leak with reqs buffer

[Mirsad Goran Todorovac]

On 5/24/23 07:34, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 06:20:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 08:58:58PM +0200, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
> > > On 12. 05. 2023. 15:09, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 02:34:29PM +0200, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -1011,6 +1016,11 @@ ssize_t trigger_batched_requests_async_store(struct device *dev,
> > > > > >     	mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex);
> > > > > > +	if (test_fw_config->reqs) {
> > > > > > +		rc = -EBUSY;
> > > > > > +		goto out_bail;
> > > > > > +	}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >     	test_fw_config->reqs =
> > > > > >     		vzalloc(array3_size(sizeof(struct test_batched_req),
> > > > > >     				    test_fw_config->num_requests, 2));
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just thinking, since returning -EBUSY for the case of already allocated
> > > > > test_fw_config->reqs was your suggestion and your idea, maybe it would be OK
> > > > > to properly reflect that in Co-developed-by: or Signed-off-by: , but if I
> > > > > understood well, the CoC requires that I am explicitly approved of those?
> > > >
> > > > If everyone else is okay, let's just apply this as-is.  You did all the
> > > > hard bits.
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > dan carpenter
> > >
> > > If it is OK with you, then I hope I have your Reviewed-by:
> >
> > Wow.  Sorry for all the delay on this.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for doing this work! It looks much better now split up!

No problem. It's a great exercise for the little grey cells :-)

> For all 3 patches:
>
> Acked-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks,
Mirsad

> Greg, can you pick these up?
>
>    Luis