From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965848Ab2DKXaF (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:30:05 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:45547 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965715Ab2DKX3w (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:29:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:27:20 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Jesper Juhl Cc: Xi Wang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Joe Perches , Dan Carpenter , Forest Bond Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6656: Don't leak memory in drivers/staging/vt6656/ioctl.c::private_ioctl() Message-ID: <20120411232720.GA32500@kroah.com> References: <20120411224920.GA1612@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 01:17:52AM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 06:46:33PM -0400, Xi Wang wrote: > > > On Apr 11, 2012, at 6:35 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > > > > > - pNodeList = (PSNodeList)kmalloc(sizeof(SNodeList) + (sNodeList.uItem * sizeof(SNodeItem)), (int)GFP_ATOMIC); > > > > + pNodeList = kmalloc(sizeof(SNodeList) + (sNodeList.uItem * sizeof(SNodeItem)), (int)GFP_ATOMIC); > > > > > > Can you also remove casts like "(int)GFP_ATOMIC"? > > > > > > The parentheses "(sNodeList.uItem * sizeof(SNodeItem))" are also > > > pointless.. > > > > One thing at a time, odds are this is an "automated" patch, right > > Jesper? > > > > I'm not quite sure what you mean by "automated patch" Greg. Manually > editing the file in emacs, then running "git format-patch", followed by > importing the patch file into alpine and sending it off surely didn't > feel "automated" ;-) Sorry, I thought this was scripted, my apologies. > The only reason I even included the change of the return value cast was > that it was the variable I was focusing on with regards to fixing the > leak, so it felt "sufficiently related" to include in the same patch. > I certainly was not on a mission to clean up the file in general - just > fixing the leak was all that was really on the agenda. > I don't *mind* fixing up other issues in the file - sure, I can do that, > but that's an entirely different set of patches then... I agree, this patch is fine as-is, thanks. greg k-h