2017-04-25, 20:47:32 +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <ja...@zx2c4.com> > --- > net/rxrpc/rxkad.c | 10 +++++++--- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/rxrpc/rxkad.c b/net/rxrpc/rxkad.c > index 4374e7b9c7bf..dcf46c9c3ece 100644 > --- a/net/rxrpc/rxkad.c > +++ b/net/rxrpc/rxkad.c [...] > @@ -429,7 +432,8 @@ static int rxkad_verify_packet_2(struct rxrpc_call *call, > struct sk_buff *skb, > } >
Adding a few more lines of context: sg = _sg; if (unlikely(nsg > 4)) { sg = kmalloc(sizeof(*sg) * nsg, GFP_NOIO); if (!sg) goto nomem; } > sg_init_table(sg, nsg); > - skb_to_sgvec(skb, sg, offset, len); > + if (unlikely(skb_to_sgvec(skb, sg, offset, len) < 0)) > + goto nomem; You're leaking sg when nsg > 4, you'll need to add this: if (sg != _sg) kfree(sg); BTW, when you resubmit, please Cc: the maintainers of the files you're changing for each patch, so that they can review this stuff. And send patch 1 to all of them, otherwise they might be surprised that we even need <0 checking after calls to skb_to_sgvec. You might also want to add a cover letter. -- Sabrina