From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:28:46 +0000
Subject: Re: [patch] nfs: fix unlikely memory leak
Message-Id: <1267885726.4688.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
List-Id: <kernel-janitors.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20100306120221.GA10702@bicker>
In-Reply-To: <20100306120221.GA10702@bicker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 15:02 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: 
> I'll admit that it's unlikely for the first allocation to fail and 
> the second one to succeed.  I won't be offended if you ignore this
> patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
> 
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> index eda74c4..f9254fb 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> @@ -5107,6 +5107,7 @@ static int nfs41_proc_async_sequence(struct nfs_client *clp,
>  	res = kzalloc(sizeof(*res), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!args || !res) {
>  		kfree(args);
> +		kfree(res);
>  		nfs_put_client(clp);
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	}

It's a good point. I will apply...

Cheers
  Trond