Re: Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: use cleanup helpers in mem_write()
From: 赵金明
Date: Thu May 21 2026 - 09:37:03 EST
>On Thu, 21 May 2026, ZhaoJinming wrote:
>
>> In mem_write(), the temporary array returned by
>> parse_int_array_user() must be released on all exit paths.
>> Convert the array variable to use cleanup.h scope-based
>> cleanup so it is freed automatically on return.
>>
>> This also moves the array declaration next to
>> parse_int_array_user() as required by cleanup.h usage
>> guidelines.
>
>Now you made these much shorter than 72 chars. :-(
>
>> Fixes: 8e0a2fc68ec3 ("platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Use 32 bit aligned address for debugfs mem write")
>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Signed-off-by: ZhaoJinming <zhaojinming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>? drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec_tpmi.c | 25 +++++++++----------------
>>? 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec_tpmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec_tpmi.c
>> index 16fd7aa41f20..88f14d0ad410 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec_tpmi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec_tpmi.c
>> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
>>? #include <linux/auxiliary_bus.h>
>>? #include <linux/bitfield.h>
>>? #include <linux/debugfs.h>
>> +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
>>? #include <linux/delay.h>
>>? #include <linux/intel_tpmi.h>
>>? #include <linux/intel_vsec.h>
>> @@ -473,7 +474,7 @@ static ssize_t mem_write(struct file *file, const char __user *userbuf, size_t l
>>? struct seq_file *m = file->private_data;
>>? struct intel_tpmi_pm_feature *pfs = m->private;
>>? u32 addr, value, punit, size;
>> - u32 num_elems, *array;
>> + u32 num_elems;
>>? void __iomem *mem;
>>? int ret;
>>?
>> @@ -481,15 +482,14 @@ static ssize_t mem_write(struct file *file, const char __user *userbuf, size_t l
>>? if (!size)
>>? return -EIO;
>>?
>> + u32 *array __free(kfree) = NULL;
>>? ret = parse_int_array_user(userbuf, len, (int **)&array);
>>? if (ret < 0)
>>? return ret;
>>?
>>? num_elems = *array;
>> - if (num_elems != 3) {
>> - ret = -EINVAL;
>> - goto exit_write;
>> - }
>> + if (num_elems != 3)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>>?
>>? punit = array[1];
>>? addr = array[2];
>> @@ -498,15 +498,11 @@ static ssize_t mem_write(struct file *file, const char __user *userbuf, size_t l
>>? if (!IS_ALIGNED(addr, sizeof(u32)))
>>? return -EINVAL;
>>?
>> - if (punit >= pfs->pfs_header.num_entries) {
>> - ret = -EINVAL;
>> - goto exit_write;
>> - }
>> + if (punit >= pfs->pfs_header.num_entries)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>>?
>> - if (addr >= size) {
>> - ret = -EINVAL;
>> - goto exit_write;
>> - }
>> + if (addr >= size)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>>?
>>? mutex_lock(&tpmi_dev_lock);
>>?
>> @@ -525,9 +521,6 @@ static ssize_t mem_write(struct file *file, const char __user *userbuf, size_t l
>>? unlock_mem_write:
>>? mutex_unlock(&tpmi_dev_lock);
>>?
>> -exit_write:
>> - kfree(array);
>> -
>>? return ret;
>>? }
>>?
>>
>
>The code change looks okay now.
>
>BUT, please send the next version properly versioned (it "v4" or so in
>it's subject, I think) and in a fresh thread. As is, b4 gets confused
>which patches are the latest version so I cannot apply these with my
>maintainer tools.
>
Thanks for your reply.
I've sent the v4 patches in a new thread.
>--
> i.
>
>