From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Elfring Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:25:03 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] nbd: Fix memory leak in nbd_add_socket Message-Id: List-Id: References: <20200622112001.105047-1-zhengbin13@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <20200622112001.105047-1-zhengbin13@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Zheng Bin , Navid Emamdoost , linux-block@vger.kernel.org Cc: nbd@other.debian.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Aditya Pakki , Navid Emamdoost , Kangjie Lu , Stephen McCamant , Qiushi Wu , Jens Axboe , Josef Bacik , Tuomas Tynkkynen , Yi Zhang > When adding first socket to nbd, 

… Can the term “network block device” matter for this change description? > … A memory leak will occur > then because the function "nbd_config_put" will free "config->socks" only > when "config->num_connections" is not zero. Will an additional imperative wording be helpful for the commit message? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=625d3449788f85569096780592549d0340e9c0c7#n151 Regards, Markus … > +++ b/drivers/block/nbd.c > @@ -1033,25 +1033,26 @@ static int nbd_add_socket(struct nbd_device *nbd, unsigned long arg, … > + if (!nsock) { > + err = -ENOMEM; > + goto put_socket; > } … > return 0; > + I find that the exception handling can be improved a bit more by adding another jump target. +e_nomem: + err = -ENOMEM; > +put_socket: > + sockfd_put(sock); > + return err; > } Would you like to apply any further fine-tuning? Regards, Markus