From 3560160aa26ebced1944aaa2e7e436d2a1b1bf70 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Woodhouse Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 01:28:05 +0100 Subject: [JFFS2] Fix memory leak in scan code; improve comments. If we had to allocate extra space for the summary node, we weren't correctly freeing it when jffs2_sum_scan_sumnode() returned nonzero -- which is both the success and the failure case. Only when it returned zero, which means fall through to the full scan, were we correctly freeing the buffer. Document the meaning of those return codes while we're at it. Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse --- fs/jffs2/scan.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'fs/jffs2/scan.c') diff --git a/fs/jffs2/scan.c b/fs/jffs2/scan.c index 0663705..192b0bd 100644 --- a/fs/jffs2/scan.c +++ b/fs/jffs2/scan.c @@ -516,10 +516,15 @@ static int jffs2_scan_eraseblock (struct jffs2_sb_info *c, struct jffs2_eraseblo if (sumptr) { err = jffs2_sum_scan_sumnode(c, jeb, sumptr, sumlen, &pseudo_random); - if (err) - return err; + if (buf_size && sumlen > buf_size) kfree(sumptr); + /* If it returns with a real error, bail. + If it returns positive, that's a block classification + (i.e. BLK_STATE_xxx) so return that too. + If it returns zero, fall through to full scan. */ + if (err) + return err; } } -- cgit v1.1