Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 2/3] test_firmware: fix a memory leak with reqs buffer

[Mirsad Goran Todorovac]

On 5/18/23 17:20, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 08:58:58PM +0200, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
> > On 12. 05. 2023. 15:09, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 02:34:29PM +0200, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
> > > > > @@ -1011,6 +1016,11 @@ ssize_t trigger_batched_requests_async_store(struct device *dev,
> > > > >     	mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex);
> > > > > +	if (test_fw_config->reqs) {
> > > > > +		rc = -EBUSY;
> > > > > +		goto out_bail;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > >     	test_fw_config->reqs =
> > > > >     		vzalloc(array3_size(sizeof(struct test_batched_req),
> > > > >     				    test_fw_config->num_requests, 2));
> > > >
> > > > I was just thinking, since returning -EBUSY for the case of already allocated
> > > > test_fw_config->reqs was your suggestion and your idea, maybe it would be OK
> > > > to properly reflect that in Co-developed-by: or Signed-off-by: , but if I
> > > > understood well, the CoC requires that I am explicitly approved of those?
> > >
> > > If everyone else is okay, let's just apply this as-is.  You did all the
> > > hard bits.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > dan carpenter
> >
> > If it is OK with you, then I hope I have your Reviewed-by:
>
> Wow.  Sorry for all the delay on this.

No, not at all. I don't want to be a nag and overwhelm developers. :-)

> Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thank you.

I suppose this is for 2/3.

Did you consider reviewing the other two patches?

> > I'm kinda still uncertain about the proper procedure.
> > This certainly isn't "the perfect patch" :-)
>
> Heh.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter

Well, I have about come to the limits of CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK setting,
with a happy catch of about a dozen bugs, but this is still less than 
0.1% of the expected 11,000 bugs for a codebase sized 10.9 million line.

So I am considering the use of a static analysis tool. Like Smatch.

Thank Heavens, most of the code is modular, and about 90% of the
functions are static and thereof, of course, having the scope limited
to their module.

I am still only catching bugs like memleaks and lockups when they
manifest, proactive search for bugs is a new level I suppose.

Best regards,
Mirsad