On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 05:11:51PM +0200, Christian Gromm wrote:
> @@ -411,21 +428,31 @@ static int aim_rx_data(struct mbo *mbo)
> struct sk_buff *skb;
> struct net_device *dev;
> unsigned int skb_len;
> + int ret = 0;
>
> - nd = get_net_dev_context(mbo->ifp);
> - if (!nd || nd->rx.ch_id != mbo->hdm_channel_id)
> + nd = get_net_dev_hold(mbo->ifp);
> + if (!nd)
> return -EIO;
>
> + if (nd->rx.ch_id != mbo->hdm_channel_id) {
> + ret = -EIO;
> + goto put_nd;
> + }
> +
> dev = nd->dev;
>
> if (nd->is_mamac) {
> - if (!PMS_IS_MAMAC(buf, len))
> - return -EIO;
> + if (!PMS_IS_MAMAC(buf, len)) {
> + ret = -EIO;
> + goto put_nd;
> + }
>
> skb = dev_alloc_skb(len - MDP_HDR_LEN + 2 * ETH_ALEN + 2);
> } else {
> - if (!PMS_IS_MEP(buf, len))
> - return -EIO;
> + if (!PMS_IS_MEP(buf, len)) {
> + ret = -EIO;
> + goto put_nd;
> + }
>
> skb = dev_alloc_skb(len - MEP_HDR_LEN);
> }
> @@ -468,7 +495,10 @@ static int aim_rx_data(struct mbo *mbo)
>
> out:
> most_put_mbo(mbo);
> - return 0;
> +
> +put_nd:
> + dev_put(nd->dev);
> + return ret;
> }
>
Can we actually hit any of the goto put_nd paths? I know you didn't
introduce this but it feels like we should be calling most_put_mbo() on
basically all those paths or we'r leaking. I'm not really familiar with
the code, and those also slightly feel like sanity checks which we don't
actually think can happen... ?
What do you think?
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
