On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:43 AM Sachin Saxena <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Babu Radhakrishnan, AgalyaX > > <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:11 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: Pattan, Reshma <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal > > <[email protected]>; Sachin Saxena <[email protected]>; > > Parthasarathy, JananeeX M <[email protected]>; > > [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] bus/fslmc: fix for resource leak coverity issue > > Importance: High > > > > Hi, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Babu Radhakrishnan, AgalyaX > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:01 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: Pattan, Reshma <[email protected]>; > > [email protected]; > > > [email protected]; Parthasarathy, JananeeX M > > > <[email protected]>; Babu Radhakrishnan, AgalyaX > > > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > > Subject: [PATCH] bus/fslmc: fix for resource leak coverity issue > > > > > > From: Agalya Babu RadhaKrishnan > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > 1 issue caught by 344967 > > > Leaked_storage: Variable sep going out of scope leaks the storage it > > > points to. > > > > > > When 'sep' is not null and sep_exist is 0, 'sep' is freed before going > > > out of scope of the function irrespective of 'addr' exists or not. > > > > > > Coverity Issue: 344967 > > > Fixes: e67a61614d0b ("bus/fslmc: support device iteration") > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Agalya Babu RadhaKrishnan > > > <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > > if (strncmp("dpni", sep, 4) && > > strncmp("dpseci", sep, 6) && > > strncmp("dpcon", sep, 5) & > > ..... > > > > We think validation of device name is done using AND operator instead it > > should be done by OR operator. > > Please confirm > [Sachin Saxena] The purpose of this logic to confirm that one of the device > name should match to supported list and as soon as one strncmp() matches the > string it will return 0 and the control comes out of IF condition. > So, existing logic is correct. >
Should I understand this as a confirmation of the initial ACK? -- David Marchand
