On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 7:08 AM Dongliang Mu <mudonglianga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 11:32 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 10:30:26PM +0800, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> > > The function tpci200_register called by tpci200_install and
> > > tpci200_unregister called by tpci200_uninstall are in pair. However,
> > > tpci200_unregister has some cleanup operations not in the
> > > tpci200_register. So the error handling code of tpci200_pci_probe has
> > > many different double free issues.
> > >
> > > Fix this problem by moving those cleanup operations out of
> > > tpci200_unregister, into tpci200_pci_remove and reverting
> > > the previous commit 9272e5d0028d ("ipack/carriers/tpci200:
> > > Fix a double free in tpci200_pci_probe").
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Dongliang Mu <mudonglianga...@gmail.com>
> > > Fixes: 9272e5d0028d ("ipack/carriers/tpci200: Fix a double free in
> > > tpci200_pci_probe")
> > > Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <mudonglianga...@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > v1->v2: revise PATCH 2/3, 3/3, not depending on PATCH 1/3; move the
> > > location change of tpci_unregister into one separate patch;
> >
> > Also needs to go to the stable trees, right?
>
> Yes, this needs to go to the stable trees.
Hi gregkh,
Let me clarify more. In my series, PATCH 3/4 4/4 depends on PATCH 1/4
and PATCH 2/4. And also PATCH 2/4 depends on PATCH 1/4 as they are
closely related.
But from your reply, the last 2 patches should not depend on the first
2 patches. I don't quite understand as I don't send some patch series
before. For a patch series, the latter ones should depend on the
former ones, right? If I have any misunderstanding, please let me
know.
BTW, PATCH 3/4 has some compilation issues. I will fix it in the next version.
>
> >
_______________________________________________
Industrypack-devel mailing list
Industrypack-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/industrypack-devel
