On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Frank Rowand <frowand.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Alan, > > It is Rob's choice of which order to take the patches in.
If we have a choice, better to take fixes first so they can be more easily backported. Rob > Either order, it will be a trivial fixup to the second patchset > to go in. > > -Frank > > > On 10/15/17 19:35, Wang, Alan 1. (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) wrote: >> Hi Frank, >> >> Could I continue to send my patch since conflict with your patches? Or I >> have to wait for your patches merged? Thanks. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Frank Rowand [mailto:frowand.l...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 6:05 AM >> To: Wang, Alan 1. (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) <alan.1.w...@nokia-sbell.com>; >> Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.anton...@konsulko.com>; Rob Herring >> <robh...@kernel.org> >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; devicet...@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: overlay: fix memory leak related to duplicated >> property >> >> Hi Rob, >> >> On 10/12/17 20:07, Lixin Wang wrote: >>> From: alawang <alan.1.w...@nokia-sbell.com> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Sorry It was my fault in last email that wrote the wrong subject and sign >>> off name. >>> Correct them this time. >>> Thanks >>> >>> Function of_changeset_add_property or of_changeset_update_property may >>> fails. In this case the property just allocated is never deallocated. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Lixin Wang <alan.1.w...@nokia-sbell.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/of/overlay.c | 15 +++++++++++---- >>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c index >>> 8ecfee3..af3b9a1 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c >>> +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c >>> @@ -162,6 +162,7 @@ static int of_overlay_apply_single_property(struct >>> of_overlay *ov, >>> bool is_symbols_node) >>> { >>> struct property *propn = NULL, *tprop; >>> + int ret = 0; >>> >>> /* NOTE: Multiple changes of single properties not supported */ >>> tprop = of_find_property(target, prop->name, NULL); @@ -186,10 >>> +187,16 @@ static int of_overlay_apply_single_property(struct >>> of_overlay *ov, >>> >>> /* not found? add */ >>> if (tprop == NULL) >>> - return of_changeset_add_property(&ov->cset, target, propn); >>> - >>> - /* found? update */ >>> - return of_changeset_update_property(&ov->cset, target, propn); >>> + ret = of_changeset_add_property(&ov->cset, target, propn); >>> + else /* found? update */ >>> + ret = of_changeset_update_property(&ov->cset, target, propn); >>> + >>> + if (ret) { >>> + kfree(propn->name); >>> + kfree(propn->value); >>> + kfree(propn); >>> + } >>> + return ret; >>> } >>> >>> static int of_overlay_apply_single_device_node(struct of_overlay *ov, >>> >> >> Just a heads up. >> >> This will conflict with my patch series "[PATCH 00/12] of: overlay: clean up >> device tree overlay code" [1]. The issue that Lixin has identified will >> still remain after applying my patch series, and can be fixed in the same >> manner as his patch, just different context, including variable names. >> >> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/10/2/679 >> >> -Frank >> >
