On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 08:38:00AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 31. 05. 19, 3:14, Gen Zhang wrote:
> > In clk_cpy_name(), '*dst_p'('parent->name'and 'parent->fw_name') and
> > 'dst' are allcoted by kstrdup_const(). According to doc: "Strings
> > allocated by kstrdup_const should be freed by kfree_const". So
> > 'parent->name', 'parent->fw_name' and 'dst' should be freed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gen Zhang <blackgod016...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > index aa51756..85c4d3f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > @@ -3435,6 +3435,7 @@ static int clk_cpy_name(const char **dst_p, const
> > char *src, bool must_exist)
> > if (!dst)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > + kfree_const(dst);
>
> So you are now returning a freed pointer in dst_p?
Thanks for your reply. I re-examined the code, and this kfree is
incorrect and it should be deleted.
>
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -3491,6 +3492,8 @@ static int clk_core_populate_parent_map(struct
> > clk_core *core)
> > kfree_const(parents[i].name);
> > kfree_const(parents[i].fw_name);
> > } while (--i >= 0);
> > + kfree_const(parent->name);
> > + kfree_const(parent->fw_name);
>
> Both of them were just freed in the loop above, no?
for (i = 0, parent = parents; i < num_parents; i++, parent++)
Is 'parent' the same as the one from the loop above?
Moreover, should 'parents[i].name' and 'parents[i].fw_name' be freed by
kfree_const()?
Thanks
Gen
>
> thanks,
> --
> js
> suse labs
