[PATCH v2] ASoC: Intel: Skylake: fix possible memory leak in skl_codec_device_init()

[Cezary Rojewski]

On 2022-10-20 12:59 PM, Yang Yingliang wrote:
> If snd_hdac_device_register() fails, 'codec' and name allocated in
> dev_set_name() called in snd_hdac_device_init() are leaked. Fix this
> by calling put_device(), so they can be freed in snd_hda_codec_dev_release()
> and kobject_cleanup().
> 
> Fixes: e4746d94d00c ("ASoC: Intel: Skylake: Introduce HDA codec init and exit routines")
> Fixes: dfe66a18780d ("ALSA: hdac_ext: add extended HDA bus")

I do not believe the second Fixes-tag is required as it's not connected 
directly with the fix you're providing.

Tag:
Suggested-by: Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski at intel.com>

would be most welcome though.

Also, if there would happen to be v3, please bundle Skylake and SOF 
patches together into a single patchset (still not a single patch!).

> Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang at huawei.com>

...

>   sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl.c | 8 +-------
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl.c b/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl.c
> index bbba2df33aaf..3312b57e3c0c 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl.c
> @@ -689,11 +689,6 @@ static void load_codec_module(struct hda_codec *codec)
>   
>   #endif /* CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_SKYLAKE_HDAUDIO_CODEC */
>   
> -static void skl_codec_device_exit(struct device *dev)
> -{
> -	snd_hdac_device_exit(dev_to_hdac_dev(dev));
> -}
> -
>   static struct hda_codec *skl_codec_device_init(struct hdac_bus *bus, int addr)
>   {
>   	struct hda_codec *codec;
> @@ -706,12 +701,11 @@ static struct hda_codec *skl_codec_device_init(struct hdac_bus *bus, int addr)
>   	}
>   
>   	codec->core.type = HDA_DEV_ASOC;
> -	codec->core.dev.release = skl_codec_device_exit;
>   
>   	ret = snd_hdac_device_register(&codec->core);
>   	if (ret) {
>   		dev_err(bus->dev, "failed to register hdac device\n");
> -		snd_hdac_device_exit(&codec->core);
> +		put_device(&codec->core.dev);
>   		return ERR_PTR(ret);
>   	}
>   

Shy question: why my suggestion seems reasonable, I did not test it yet, 
proposed it based on static analysis of the code. Did you test it?


Regards,
Czarek