Re: [PATCH v2] afs: Fix memory leak in afs_put_sysnames()

[David Howells]

Markus Elfring  wrote:

> > sysnames should be freed after refcnt being decreased to zero in
> > afs_put_sysnames().
> 
> How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
> 
>Release the sysnames object after its reference counter was decreased
>to zero.

I would say "reference count" not "reference counter" personally.  I would
also say "afs_sysnames" rather than "sysnames".  Perhaps something like:

Fix afs_put_sysnames() to actually free the specified afs_sysnames
object after its reference count has been decreased to zero and its
contents have been released.

> Will it matter to mention the size of the data structure "afs_sysnames"?

Why is it necessary to do so?

David

Re: [PATCH v2] afs: Fix memory leak in afs_put_sysnames()

[Markus Elfring]

> sysnames should be freed after refcnt being decreased to zero in
> afs_put_sysnames().

How do you think about a wording variant like the following?

   Release the sysnames object after its reference counter was decreased
   to zero.


Will it matter to mention the size of the data structure "afs_sysnames"?

Regards,
Markus

[PATCH v2] afs: Fix memory leak in afs_put_sysnames()

[Zhihao Cheng]

sysnames should be freed after refcnt being decreased to zero in
afs_put_sysnames().

Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng 
Cc:  # v4.17+
Fixes: 6f8880d8e681557 ("afs: Implement @sys substitution handling")
---
 fs/afs/proc.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/fs/afs/proc.c b/fs/afs/proc.c
index 468e1713bce1..6f34c84a0fd0 100644
--- a/fs/afs/proc.c
+++ b/fs/afs/proc.c
@@ -563,6 +563,7 @@ void afs_put_sysnames(struct afs_sysnames *sysnames)
if (sysnames->subs[i] != afs_init_sysname &&
sysnames->subs[i] != sysnames->blank)
kfree(sysnames->subs[i]);
+   kfree(sysnames);
}
 }
 
-- 
2.25.4