Fix the @data and @fd allocations that are leaked in the error path of
apply_xbc().
Fixes: 85c46b78da58 ("bootconfig: Add bootconfig magic word for indicating
bootconfig explicitly")
Fixes: 950313ebf79c ("tools: bootconfig: Add bootconfig command")
Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu
Signed-off-by: Yunfe
> this change can fix the warning of tools.
Would you like to point any specific source code analysis tools out
for this issue?
(Can a corresponding attribution become relevant for a clearer
change description?)
Regards,
Markus
On 2020/5/8 19:30, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> this change can fix the warning of tools.
>
> Would you like to point any specific source code analysis tools out
> for this issue?
> (Can a corresponding attribution become relevant for a clearer
> change description?)
>
The tools we used is not for
On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:42:56 +0800
Yunfeng Ye wrote:
> On 2020/5/8 19:30, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> this change can fix the warning of tools.
> >
> > Would you like to point any specific source code analysis tools out
> > for this issue?
> > (Can a corresponding attribution become relevant for
> Markus please stop! Your suggestions are just your preferences that are not
> required for the kernel.
Do our imaginations and expectations differ for a good commit message?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=79
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 09:00:53AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:42:56 +0800
> Yunfeng Ye wrote:
>
> > On 2020/5/8 19:30, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > >> this change can fix the warning of tools.
> > >
> > > Would you like to point any specific source code analysis tools ou
On Fri, 8 May 2020 17:45:27 +0300
Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Yunfeng, your v2 was fine and has already landed in Linus's tree. Feel free
> > to ignore Markus's suggestions in the future.
>
> There was actually a bug in v2. It exits with a non-zero instead of
> zero on success so it will mess up
>> There was actually a bug in v2. It exits with a non-zero instead of
>> zero on success so it will mess up people's scripts.
>
> Thanks, I just fixed it. And because of the distraction of Markus's
> bikesheding, it was missed :-(
I am curious how the software development attention will evolve f
…
> +++ b/tools/bootconfig/main.c
> @@ -314,31 +314,35 @@ int apply_xbc(const char *path, const char *xbc_path)
…
> +free_data:
> free(data);
…
Would any software users prefer to omit the memory release for
a quicker program termination?
Can the commit message become clearer about the expla
On 2020/5/8 19:03, Markus Elfring wrote:
> …
>> +++ b/tools/bootconfig/main.c
>> @@ -314,31 +314,35 @@ int apply_xbc(const char *path, const char *xbc_path)
> …
>> +free_data:
>> free(data);
> …
>
> Would any software users prefer to omit the memory release for
> a quicker program terminat
10 matches
Mail list logo
