From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20B6C389106; Mon, 3 Aug 2026 08:57:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785747440; cv=none; b=aeSftJe5ZlMbxYCuTJaeEPNX3FgDMRmMIG/mR1dNmsYNU/FyJC4UMH8FzrhA/9WL3PVVK6v6AJe/m8UDL/EbFUFn7Bu4A9UfGKZb6FpPYW3bem1v+CSv8O9+CnAEN4tSPz4+feCkmVbjJjINjzF+3QdL0Wz0e6HB/M0VFVt89SM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785747440; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HDON8GFNlrgcg6jLvqJQgS3YW4Y5ljIBsfULOebfcKk=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=peDvURbdveyw0HNNo6CkJnD9oxDjkIn5qzFNLS1udBlGWmWSwZLGKHPiw3+CiN3tJ3vNCMYtQ12A0YwqcYZMS7npfYOPX4+GFHEba1+KV//6VQMRQgJ5CtedFoyBnuLInGE9LO6Q6q46MhJ3SNJ7mtm81/Bu4TmJ4YG2eHmCG2w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=IJR2foV5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="IJR2foV5" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=KQhbPjL0Cwy9FGeO2wW7tXyf6su+oC6HvjL0ynDvWO4=; t=1785747439; x=1786957039; b=IJR2foV5t8uXLLb23JdcfcJI5ZIljnO7OexRqQ3DfSO4JuK ojv8luTo50+x//D7h6cUSirroiRA/nsJ4sfCw7twSET+tgQt9B3dXo2XHYKTL1wVDX19vrjXEM8Hv /b8z8FZcw9qlUyskDKETtAGgUCz7smMbiG0DALpbGO6/t6qbz2aUB6PUcsEaiJfUJw0gqTSRHTI2K fo70OVTvNiNo3aAL7LxfFtxcEQh3M03pcSB5+VTnB5uFLwVpJioE8y4s4kiXOEIaJi8MbZbemXM+2 JeJNPGSmUOWmQK4Hq9AAFtdXFGCRV1V9R8615QRV2OIYn/IHpHN6WeFVb2NfonAQ==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__ECDSA_SECP256R1_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wqoTt-00000006S3B-2uJb; Mon, 03 Aug 2026 10:57:10 +0200 Message-ID: <0f7c335c9c1350ed7ef36bc6b633a2b800c44d31.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: brcmfmac: Fix memory leak in brcmf_sdio_read_control() From: Johannes Berg To: Arend van Spriel , Abdun Nihaal Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, brcm80211@lists.linux.dev, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@broadcom.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2026 10:57:08 +0200 In-Reply-To: (sfid-20260803_105505_078678_6131A81D) References: <20260722110713.115988-1-nihaal@cse.iitm.ac.in> <20260802083905.3819981-2-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> <6648c1d61a44ad732550ff20c0b1aecaa43676f6.camel@sipsolutions.net> <19fc626a040.2873.9b12b7fc0a3841636cfb5e919b41b954@broadcom.com> (sfid-20260803_105505_078678_6131A81D) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.60.2 (3.60.2-1.fc44) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Mon, 2026-08-03 at 10:54 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > >=20 > > Or just something like this? > >=20 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c > > @@ -1827,15 +1827,17 @@ brcmf_sdio_read_control(struct brcmf_sdio *bus,= u8 *hdr, uint len, uint doff) > > if (bus->rxctl) { > > brcmf_err("last control frame is being processed.\n"); > > spin_unlock_bh(&bus->rxctl_lock); > > - vfree(buf); > > goto done; > > } > > bus->rxctl =3D buf + doff; > > bus->rxctl_orig =3D buf; > > bus->rxlen =3D len - doff; > > spin_unlock_bh(&bus->rxctl_lock); > > + /* buffer is queued */ > > + buf =3D NULL; > > =20 > > done: > > + vfree(buf); > > /* Awake any waiters */ > > brcmf_sdio_dcmd_resp_wake(bus); > > } > >=20 > >=20 > > It's already using vmalloc() so seems it wouldn't care that much about > > calling vfree(NULL) on the success path? > True. And yes, the existing vfree() should go, but I figured that goes= =20 > without saying so I did not mention that. I am fine with your proposal,= =20 > but I guess the author will have to submit a v2 patch, right? I wasn't going to do it myself, but I guess I don't care who does :) johannes