From 7dd08a570dcf45d52155996fee688405635ee481 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 15:02:22 +0300
Subject: nfs: fix unlikely memory leak

I'll admit that it's unlikely for the first allocation to fail and
the second one to succeed.  I won't be offended if you ignore this
patch.

Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
---
 fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

(limited to 'fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c')

diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
index eda74c4..f9254fb 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
@@ -5107,6 +5107,7 @@ static int nfs41_proc_async_sequence(struct nfs_client *clp,
 	res = kzalloc(sizeof(*res), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!args || !res) {
 		kfree(args);
+		kfree(res);
 		nfs_put_client(clp);
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	}
-- 
cgit v1.1