From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f173.google.com ([209.85.192.173]:33081 "EHLO mail-pf0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751827AbcBAEZ5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Jan 2016 23:25:57 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 09:55:48 +0530 From: Sudip Mukherjee To: Julian Calaby Cc: Johannes Berg , "David S. Miller" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-wireless , netdev Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: fix memory leak Message-ID: <20160201042548.GA4072@sudip-pc> (sfid-20160201_052709_278995_6650DDCA) References: <1454060944-11320-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:03:35AM +1100, Julian Calaby wrote: > Hi Sudip, > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Sudip Mukherjee > wrote: > > On error we jumped to the error label and returned the error code but we > > missed releasing sinfo. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee > > Should the From: and Signed-off-by: email addresses be the same? I think 2 years back I had a long discussion with Greg about this and since then I al submitting patches like this. A small summayg of the problem from that discussion: "we have strict DMARC check for the corporate mail server. DMARC = domain based message authentication. So the mail i sent reached all the list subscriber from a different server than our designated server, and as a result it is marked as spam in many places and I have already received a few complaints regarding that." > > > --- > > net/mac80211/sta_info.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/net/mac80211/sta_info.c b/net/mac80211/sta_info.c > > index 6c198e6..36e75c4 100644 > > --- a/net/mac80211/sta_info.c > > +++ b/net/mac80211/sta_info.c > > @@ -561,6 +561,7 @@ static int sta_info_insert_finish(struct sta_info *sta) __acquires(RCU) > > __cleanup_single_sta(sta); > > out_err: > > mutex_unlock(&local->sta_mtx); > > + kfree(sinfo); > > rcu_read_lock(); > > return err; > > } > > Looks sane to me. I must note that the bug this is fixing is only in > the mac80211-next tree. > > Fixes: 5fe74014172d ("mac80211: avoid excessive stack usage in sta_info") > Reviewed-by: Julian Calaby thanks regards sudip