From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE298C2BA19 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 17:38:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDD320753 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 17:38:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sslab.ics.keio.ac.jp header.i=@sslab.ics.keio.ac.jp header.b="AGeMCB2R" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726690AbgDIRis (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2020 13:38:48 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com ([209.85.221.67]:35608 "EHLO mail-wr1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725970AbgDIRir (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2020 13:38:47 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id g3so12902498wrx.2 for ; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 10:38:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sslab.ics.keio.ac.jp; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cB5yBSX4XmqsF1ppUkd5OJUCXOdbq3LIDZ0hfF3NUgw=; b=AGeMCB2RRpgTqU0NyD8K0PMZxZc9+wdj85illkNZBFhXaDT9YCV/M4sHa4D+5pqg2O xcFqG9jDLQZo3duKjJI2k43wS7IYfPKRw+rB0EmR0stDi++HHUpZETn74dUlqeETl/DK 2ldu2cXbWe1c/D5YBxpd4VpeItFyYoIF+U+tE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cB5yBSX4XmqsF1ppUkd5OJUCXOdbq3LIDZ0hfF3NUgw=; b=sTXA9qQ8BsIoajKp/CYlKYnDimPHi/8Jn4cYxnD0VjypL/x+i1biCLA4aZAlnY7Kd4 yt9EFLYOyFdcwr7aX8lIiSTo3+/y/6i9UBUrTpzKSscc5z+TvXFvCkfTzxy3rFzgmhd4 k4LtLakS0ZEQzij/jm0wiDgzNS9/L0fWhLKUu8zySKmhddJz/jRBdogDmh7dJ4/S7H0G RKAeR6gg7Dxp1kdy5CwIWFGi+LXRplGDL3IMlc7axmIVxnY8ybbmCP5nKevxiXJH8jLB xIIwbZHeFm+jIQhfHWIfQsyPMzJ5Kz4reA7TKzL08Tdp/TlGh7cbEMRuZMZOyBBLrkfr vOYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuY4CuzhqfVkeAyhZ2AsCgZHE1dpMKFGYkV+WNTF5sSOC1n3vOJE Ej5PlSWtsnduw3WegSk+4rNgPv8crndfgJ7xVvMlgA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKHuqryJeoz1PSWp+rhiE3ZzkNIIf6gabELUM2oO0fS6yQjNadMGyH6yBef5R2sSWoP37RfT6f3UF604jlXS8I= X-Received: by 2002:adf:fc4f:: with SMTP id e15mr219309wrs.415.1586453926274; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 10:38:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200409150210.15488-1-keitasuzuki.park@sslab.ics.keio.ac.jp> <20200409.101844.1655988786538703860.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20200409.101844.1655988786538703860.davem@davemloft.net> From: Keita Suzuki Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 02:38:35 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfp: Fix memory leak in nfp_resource_acquire() To: David Miller Cc: Kubota Takafumi , Jakub Kicinski , "open list:NETRONOME ETHERNET DRIVERS" , "open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS" , open list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, So sorry about this. It seems like I accidentally touched the patch file after generating / testing the patch. I will resend the new patch immediately. I have tested the patch using kmemleak. Thanks. 2020=E5=B9=B44=E6=9C=8810=E6=97=A5(=E9=87=91) 2:18 David Miller : > > From: Keita Suzuki > Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 15:02:07 +0000 > > > This patch fixes a memory leak in nfp_resource_acquire(). res->mutex is > > alllocated in nfp_resource_try_acquire(). However, when > > msleep_interruptible() or time_is_before_eq_jiffies() fails, it falls > > into err_fails path where res is freed, but res->mutex is not. > > > > Fix this by changing call to free to nfp_resource_release(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Keita Suzuki > > Did you test compile this? > > drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfpcore/nfp_resource.c: In function = =E2=80=98nfp_resource_acquire=E2=80=99: > drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfpcore/nfp_resource.c:203:2: error: i= mplicit declaration of function =E2=80=98nfp_resource_relase=E2=80=99; did = you mean =E2=80=98nfp_resource_release=E2=80=99? [-Werror=3Dimplicit-functi= on-declaration] > nfp_resource_relase(res); > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > nfp_resource_release > > And this makes me feel like the test was not runtime tested either.