Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Fix potential memory leak in perf events parser

Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Fix potential memory leak in perf events parser

[Markus Elfring]

> Fix potential memory leak in function parse_events_term__sym_hw()
> and parse_events_term__clone().

Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?


…
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c
…
> @@ -2957,9 +2958,20 @@  int parse_events_term__sym_hw(struct parse_events_term **term,
>  	sym = &event_symbols_hw[idx];
>
>  	str = strdup(sym->symbol);
> -	if (!str)
> +	if (!str) {
> +		if (!config)
> +			free(temp.config);
>  		return -ENOMEM;
> -	return new_term(term, &temp, str, 0);
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = new_term(term, &temp, str, 0);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		free(str);
> +		if (!config)
> +			free(temp.config);
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;
>  }
…

How do you think about to add jump targets for a bit of
common exception handling code in these function implementations?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Fix potential memory leak in perf events parser

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 03:17:17PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Fix potential memory leak in function parse_events_term__sym_hw()
> > and parse_events_term__clone().
> 
> Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?
> 
> 
> …
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c
> …
> > @@ -2957,9 +2958,20 @@  int parse_events_term__sym_hw(struct parse_events_term **term,
> >  	sym = &event_symbols_hw[idx];
> >
> >  	str = strdup(sym->symbol);
> > -	if (!str)
> > +	if (!str) {
> > +		if (!config)
> > +			free(temp.config);
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> > -	return new_term(term, &temp, str, 0);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	ret = new_term(term, &temp, str, 0);
> > +	if (ret < 0) {
> > +		free(str);
> > +		if (!config)
> > +			free(temp.config);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> >  }
> …
> 
> How do you think about to add jump targets for a bit of
> common exception handling code in these function implementations?


Hi,

This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.

Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list.  I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore.  Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.

Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all.  The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback.  Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot