[PATCH] drm, i915: Fix memory leak in i915_gem_busy_ioctl().
rakib.mullick at gmail.com
Sat Nov 26 08:29:12 PST 2011
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:44:17 +0600, Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:23:06 +0100, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>> >> Indeed, nice catch (albeit totally unlikely to be hit, because the error
>> >> only happens when the gpu ceases to progress in the ring, so imo not
>> >> stable material). Keith, please pick this up for fixes, thanks.
>> > It's already there and queued for airlied :-)
>> Thank you guys for reviewing and taking the patch.
>> Now, while I was looking at the uses of i915_add_request(), I found
>> the following code :
>> ret = i915_gem_flush_ring(ring, 0,
>> request = kzalloc(sizeof(*request), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (ret || request == NULL ||
>> i915_add_request(ring, NULL, request))
>> From above code, we might ended up by calling kfree(request) without
>> allocating request. Though, it's unlikely cause if request is NULL
>> then BUG_ON will be hit in i915_add_request(). So, to unify the callee
>> uses of i915_add_request(), I'm proposing the following patch. Please
>> let me know what do you guys think. If you guys agree, I can sent a
>> formal patch.
> kfree(NULL) is permitted and taken advantage of here along with the
> short-circuiting behaviour of '||'.
Yes, no real problem with current code. I was just thinking from code
cleanup's pov. Is BUG_ON really needed in i915_add_request() ?
More information about the dri-devel