Re: [PATCH] drivers/w1: free the w1_master at w1_free_dev and return a correct return value

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

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:14:53AM +0530, devendra.aaru wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 09:47:59PM +0530, Devendra Naga wrote:
> >> the w1_master pointer is allced at the w1_alloc_master and is not freed when called with
> >> w1_remove_master.
> >>
> >> when w1_alloc_dev fails the return should be -ENODEV as it does
> >> device_register, and that is the last case where that function
> >> will fail.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Devendra Naga <devendra.aaru@gmail.com>
> >> Acked-by: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/w1/w1_int.c |    3 ++-
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/w1/w1_int.c b/drivers/w1/w1_int.c
> >> index 6828835..a3cf27d 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/w1/w1_int.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/w1/w1_int.c
> >> @@ -100,6 +100,7 @@ static struct w1_master * w1_alloc_dev(u32 id, int slave_count, int slave_ttl,
> >>  static void w1_free_dev(struct w1_master *dev)
> >>  {
> >>       device_unregister(&dev->dev);
> >> +     kfree(dev);
> >
> > No, this is wrong, the memory will be freed in w1_master_release(),
> > right?  It is not freed here, sorry, this patch is incorrect.
> >
> Yeah, correct but the following change is correct no?
> 
>  int w1_add_master_device(struct w1_bus_master *master)
> @@ -148,7 +149,7 @@ int w1_add_master_device(struct w1_bus_master *master)
>                &w1_master_driver, &w1_master_device);
>        if (!dev) {
>                mutex_unlock(&w1_mlock);
> -               return -ENOMEM;
> +               return -ENODEV;

Possibly, care to resend it in a format that explains it and allows it
to be applied?

thanks,

greg k-h