On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:15 AM Markus Elfring [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
In netlbl_unlabel_defconf if netlbl_domhsh_add_default fails the
allocated entry should be released.
…
quoted
That said, netlbl_unlabel_defconf() *should* clean up here just on
principal if nothing else.
How do you think about to add the tag “Fixes” then?
From what I've seen the "Fixes" tag is typically used by people who
are backporting patches, e.g. the -stable folks, to help decide what
they need to backport. As I mentioned in my previous email this
missing free doesn't actually manifest itself as a practical leak on
any of the existing kernels so there isn't a need to backport this
patch. For that reason I would probably skip the "Fixes" metadata
here, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to object if others
want it. FWIW, I play things very conservatively when talking about
backporting patches to stable kernels; if it doesn't fix a serious
user-visible bug it shouldn't be backported IMHO.
This patch is more of a conceptual fix than a practical fix. Not that
there is anything wrong with this patch, I just think it isn't as
critical as most people would think from reading "memory leak" in the
subject line. Yes, there is a memory leak, but the kernel panics soon
after so it's a bit moot. Further, even if the panic was somehow
skipped (?) the memory leak only happens once during boot; the failed
initialization is undoubtedly going to be far more damaging to the
system than a few lost bytes of memory.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com