Luca Coelho <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 15:57 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Luca Coelho <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > From: Christophe Jaillet <[email protected]> >> > >> > We should free 'wgds.pointer' here as done a few lines above in another >> > error handling path. >> > It was allocated within 'acpi_evaluate_object()'. >> > >> > Fixes: c52030a01ccc ("iwlwifi: mvm: add GEO_TX_POWER_LIMIT cmd for >> > geographic tx power table") >> > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <[email protected]> >> > Signed-off-by: Luca Coelho <[email protected]> >> > --- >> > drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/fw.c | 6 ++++-- >> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/fw.c >> > b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/fw.c >> > index 79e7a7a285dc..82863e9273eb 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/fw.c >> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/fw.c >> > @@ -1275,8 +1275,10 @@ static int iwl_mvm_sar_get_wgds_table(struct >> > iwl_mvm *mvm) >> > >> > entry = &wifi_pkg->package.elements[idx++]; >> > if ((entry->type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER) || >> > - (entry->integer.value > U8_MAX)) >> > - return -EINVAL; >> > + (entry->integer.value > U8_MAX)) { >> > + ret = -EINVAL; >> > + goto out_free; >> > + } >> >> How likely is this leak to happen in real world? To me it looks like >> more like a theoretical issue and could have easily waited for 4.14. But >> it's fine this time, just something to keep in mind in the future. > > This is a one-liner fix and I consider memory leaks serious enough to > deserve a fix for rc5. This bug can happen with broken ACPI tables and, > trust me, broken ACPI tables are not that hard to find.
Sure, anything's possible. But what I'm reading here this is still a theoretical issue, not a leak which we _know_ will happen to thousands of people. > But you rule here, feel free to NACK my patches whenever you see fit! :) I'm trying to minimise the numbers of patches going to wireless-drivers and striving for only fixes which really matter and keep the theoretical stuff for -next. The is mostly selfish reasons as wireless-drivers are a lot more work, especially if there are conflicts. But like I said in my previous mail, no need to drop this. -- Kalle Valo
