fixes for ioctl() of usbtmc in testing tree

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 12:20:42PM +0000, guido@kiener-muenchen.de wrote:
> 
> Zitat von Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>:
> 
> > On Mo, 2018-09-24 at 10:56 +0000, guido@kiener-muenchen.de wrote:
> > > Zitat von Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > how should I mark fixes intended for the testing branch?
> > > > > I got one for the usbtmc driver.
> > > >
> > > > Just send it like normal.  You can do a "Fixes:" tag with the sha1, that
> > > > should be fine.  I need to push out my testing branch now, 0-day seems
> > > > to be stalled :(
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Big sorry! There is a superflous kmalloc line 1270 til 1272.
> > > Shall I send the fix?
> > 
> > Damn. That is the same allocation repeated, not a reuse of the buffer.
> > I'll resend. There is also a leak in the error case.
> > 
> 
> I do not see a leak in the error case. kfree(NULL) should be ok.
> Sorry, I referred the line 1270 to the mail of Dan Carpenter. I mean the
> lines:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c b/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
> index 0fcb81a1399b..dfbcf418dad7 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
> @@ -1895,10 +1895,6 @@ static int usbtmc_ioctl_request(struct
> usbtmc_device_data *data,
>         if (res)
>                 return -EFAULT;
> 
> -       buffer = kmalloc(request.req.wLength, GFP_KERNEL);
> -       if (!buffer)
> -               return -ENOMEM;
> -
>         if (request.req.wLength > USBTMC_BUFSIZE)
>                 return -EMSGSIZE;
> 
> @Oliver: Where do send (resend) the fix? Is this an official fix or
> do you just fix your internal build system?
> And I still have to make an official fix, isn't it?

Yes, you need to send a "real" patch for anyone to be able to pick it
up.

thanks,

greg k-h