From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]:54956 "EHLO mail-out.m-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753246AbcDSLaq (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:30:46 -0400 Message-ID: <57160937.6000903@denx.de> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 12:32:23 +0200 From: Marek Vasut MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefan Wahren , Jonathan Cameron , Hartmut Knaack , Lars-Peter Clausen , Peter Meerwald-Stadler CC: Ksenija Stanojevic , Fabio Estevam , Juergen Borleis , Alexandre Belloni , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT 1/5] iio: mxs-lradc: fix memory leak References: <1460648909-2657-1-git-send-email-stefan.wahren@i2se.com> <1460648909-2657-2-git-send-email-stefan.wahren@i2se.com> <570FF70F.3000501@denx.de> <571360A3.3060809@kernel.org> <57151652.4020709@denx.de> <5715D12D.1020303@i2se.com> In-Reply-To: <5715D12D.1020303@i2se.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org On 04/19/2016 08:33 AM, Stefan Wahren wrote: > Hi Marek, > > Am 18.04.2016 um 19:16 schrieb Marek Vasut: >> On 04/17/2016 12:08 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>> On 14/04/16 21:01, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 04/14/2016 05:48 PM, Stefan Wahren wrote: >>>>> After successful touchscreen registration the input device was >>>>> never freed. So fix this issue by using devm_input_allocate_device(). >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Wahren >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c | 8 ++------ >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c >>>>> index 33051b8..0576953 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c >>>>> @@ -1109,12 +1109,11 @@ static int mxs_lradc_ts_register(struct mxs_lradc *lradc) >>>>> { >>>>> struct input_dev *input; >>>>> struct device *dev = lradc->dev; >>>>> - int ret; >>>>> >>>>> if (!lradc->use_touchscreen) >>>>> return 0; >>>>> >>>>> - input = input_allocate_device(); >>>>> + input = devm_input_allocate_device(dev); >>>>> if (!input) >>>>> return -ENOMEM; >>>>> >>>>> @@ -1134,11 +1133,8 @@ static int mxs_lradc_ts_register(struct mxs_lradc *lradc) >>>>> >>>>> lradc->ts_input = input; >>>>> input_set_drvdata(input, lradc); >>>>> - ret = input_register_device(input); >>>>> - if (ret) >>>>> - input_free_device(lradc->ts_input); >>>>> >>>>> - return ret; >>>>> + return input_register_device(input); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> static void mxs_lradc_ts_unregister(struct mxs_lradc *lradc) >>>>> >>>> Nice find. >>>> >>>> Looks like at91_adc.c and exynos_adc.c suffer from the exact same issue. >>>> The leak looks a bit more severe on exynos even, exynos_adc_ts_init() >>>> could use a proper fail path. Do you want to send patches or shall I ? >>>> >>> As this has been there a long time I'm not going to rush it in as a fix. >> I did take a proper look today and it seems they do the right thing >> afterall. I checked them with kmemleak too to be sure. > > thanks, input_unregister_device already free the memory. > > Sorry for the mess :-( > > I think it would be the best to remove / revert this patch. This one? Why exactly? Please elaborate some more, so it's possible to understand the reasoning :) -- Best regards, Marek Vasut From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marex@denx.de (Marek Vasut) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 12:32:23 +0200 Subject: [PATCH RFT 1/5] iio: mxs-lradc: fix memory leak In-Reply-To: <5715D12D.1020303@i2se.com> References: <1460648909-2657-1-git-send-email-stefan.wahren@i2se.com> <1460648909-2657-2-git-send-email-stefan.wahren@i2se.com> <570FF70F.3000501@denx.de> <571360A3.3060809@kernel.org> <57151652.4020709@denx.de> <5715D12D.1020303@i2se.com> Message-ID: <57160937.6000903@denx.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 04/19/2016 08:33 AM, Stefan Wahren wrote: > Hi Marek, > > Am 18.04.2016 um 19:16 schrieb Marek Vasut: >> On 04/17/2016 12:08 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>> On 14/04/16 21:01, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 04/14/2016 05:48 PM, Stefan Wahren wrote: >>>>> After successful touchscreen registration the input device was >>>>> never freed. So fix this issue by using devm_input_allocate_device(). >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Wahren >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c | 8 ++------ >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c >>>>> index 33051b8..0576953 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c >>>>> @@ -1109,12 +1109,11 @@ static int mxs_lradc_ts_register(struct mxs_lradc *lradc) >>>>> { >>>>> struct input_dev *input; >>>>> struct device *dev = lradc->dev; >>>>> - int ret; >>>>> >>>>> if (!lradc->use_touchscreen) >>>>> return 0; >>>>> >>>>> - input = input_allocate_device(); >>>>> + input = devm_input_allocate_device(dev); >>>>> if (!input) >>>>> return -ENOMEM; >>>>> >>>>> @@ -1134,11 +1133,8 @@ static int mxs_lradc_ts_register(struct mxs_lradc *lradc) >>>>> >>>>> lradc->ts_input = input; >>>>> input_set_drvdata(input, lradc); >>>>> - ret = input_register_device(input); >>>>> - if (ret) >>>>> - input_free_device(lradc->ts_input); >>>>> >>>>> - return ret; >>>>> + return input_register_device(input); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> static void mxs_lradc_ts_unregister(struct mxs_lradc *lradc) >>>>> >>>> Nice find. >>>> >>>> Looks like at91_adc.c and exynos_adc.c suffer from the exact same issue. >>>> The leak looks a bit more severe on exynos even, exynos_adc_ts_init() >>>> could use a proper fail path. Do you want to send patches or shall I ? >>>> >>> As this has been there a long time I'm not going to rush it in as a fix. >> I did take a proper look today and it seems they do the right thing >> afterall. I checked them with kmemleak too to be sure. > > thanks, input_unregister_device already free the memory. > > Sorry for the mess :-( > > I think it would be the best to remove / revert this patch. This one? Why exactly? Please elaborate some more, so it's possible to understand the reasoning :) -- Best regards, Marek Vasut