> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan-boun...@osuosl.org> On Behalf Of
> Simon Horman
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 9:16 AM
> To: Lobakin, Aleksander <aleksander.loba...@intel.com>
> Cc: Linga, Pavan Kumar <pavan.kumar.li...@intel.com>; NEX SW NCIS OSDT ITP
> Upstreaming <nex.sw.ncis.osdt.itp.upstream...@intel.com>;
> net...@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; sta...@vger.kernel.org;
> Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com>; Kubiak, Michal
> <michal.kub...@intel.com>; Nguyen, Anthony L
> <anthony.l.ngu...@intel.com>; Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org>; intel-wired-
> l...@lists.osuosl.org; Paolo Abeni <pab...@redhat.com>; David S. Miller
> <da...@davemloft.net>
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-net 2/3] idpf: fix memleak in vport
> interrupt configuration
> 
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 03:40:23PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > From: Michal Kubiak <michal.kub...@intel.com>
> >
> > The initialization of vport interrupt consists of two functions:
> >  1) idpf_vport_intr_init() where a generic configuration is done
> >  2) idpf_vport_intr_req_irq() where the irq for each q_vector is
> >    requested.
> >
> > The first function used to create a base name for each interrupt using
> > "kasprintf()" call. Unfortunately, although that call allocated memory
> > for a text buffer, that memory was never released.
> >
> > Fix this by removing creating the interrupt base name in 1).
> > Instead, always create a full interrupt name in the function 2), because
> > there is no need to create a base name separately, considering that the
> > function 2) is never called out of idpf_vport_intr_init() context.
> >
> > Fixes: d4d558718266 ("idpf: initialize interrupts and enable vport")
> > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # 6.7
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Kubiak <michal.kub...@intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Pavan Kumar Linga <pavan.kumar.li...@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.loba...@intel.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <ho...@kernel.org>

Tested-by: Krishneil Singh <krishneil.k.si...@intel.com>

Reply via email to