On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 16:37 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > 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.
I totally understand. It's a lot more work for me too, with all the reordering I need to do and the conflicts these cause. > But like I said in my previous mail, no need to drop this. Okay, thanks! -- Cheers, Luca.
