Re: [PATCH rdma-next] IB/srpt: Fix memory leak in srpt_add_one

[Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>]

On 10/26/20 6:27 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Maor Gottlieb <maorg@nvidia.com>
> 
> In case srpt_refresh_port failed for the second port, then
> we don't unregister the MAD agnet.
                              ^^^^^
                              agent?

The commit message is incomplete. Why does this patch have a Fixes tag?
The commit message should explain this but doesn't explain this.

What does this patch actually change? ib_unregister_mad_agent() is only
called by the current code if sport->mad_agent != NULL.

> -static void srpt_unregister_mad_agent(struct srpt_device *sdev)
> +static void __srpt_unregister_mad_agent(struct srpt_device *sdev, int port_cnt)
>  {
>  	struct ib_port_modify port_modify = {
>  		.clr_port_cap_mask = IB_PORT_DEVICE_MGMT_SUP,
> @@ -633,7 +627,10 @@ static void srpt_unregister_mad_agent(struct srpt_device *sdev)
>  	struct srpt_port *sport;
>  	int i;
>  
> -	for (i = 1; i <= sdev->device->phys_port_cnt; i++) {
> +	if (!port_cnt)
> +		return;
> +
> +	for (i = 1; i <= port_cnt; i++) {
>  		sport = &sdev->port[i - 1];
>  		WARN_ON(sport->port != i);
>  		if (sport->mad_agent) {

If this patch is retained, please leave the if-test out if you agree
that it is not necessary. I'm concerned that it will confuse readers.

Thanks,

Bart.