On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 12:59:39PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_multi.c > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_multi.c > > index e290513358d9..746a8398211a 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_multi.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_multi.c > > [ ... ] > > > @@ -241,6 +250,96 @@ static void test_link_api_ids(void) > > [ ... ] > > > +static void test_module_link_api_ids(void) > > +{ > > + size_t cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_testmod_fentry_test); > > + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_tracing_multi_opts, opts); > > + struct tracing_multi_module *skel = NULL; > > + __u32 *ids; > > + > > + skel = tracing_multi_module__open_and_load(); > > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "tracing_multi_module__open_and_load")) > > + return; > > + > > + skel->bss->pid = getpid(); > > + > > + ids = get_ids(bpf_testmod_fentry_test, cnt, "bpf_testmod"); > > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(ids, "get_ids")) > > + goto cleanup; > > This new test calls get_ids() but there's an unaddressed review comment > from sashiko-bot about a memory leak in that function. Looking at get_ids() > in the same file: > > for (i = 0; i < funcs_cnt; i++) { > if (!tsearch(&funcs[i], &root, compare)) { > ASSERT_FAIL("tsearch failed"); > err = -1; > goto out; > } > } > > ... > > if (err) { > free(ids); > ids = NULL; > } > > out: > tdestroy(root, tdestroy_free_nop); > btf__free(vmlinux_btf); > btf__free(btf); > return ids; > > If tsearch() fails, the code sets err = -1 and jumps to the out label. > However, the out label is positioned after the cleanup block that frees ids > (the "if (err)" block), not before it. This means the cleanup code is > bypassed when we goto out, causing two issues: > > 1. The ids array is leaked > > 2. The function returns a non-NULL pointer to allocated but potentially > invalid memory, which will incorrectly pass the ASSERT_OK_PTR check above > > Should the out label be moved before the cleanup block so that the error > path properly frees the ids array and sets it to NULL?
yes, will fix jirka
