linux-kernel - Re: How should dev_[gs]et_drvdata be used? (was: Re: [PATCH] i2c: i801: fix memleak on probe error)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:37:21 -0700
From:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Wu <lekensteyn@...il.com>
Cc:	Martin Mokrejs <mmokrejs@...d.natur.cuni.cz>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: How should dev_[gs]et_drvdata be used? (was: Re: [PATCH] i2c:
 i801: fix memleak on probe error)

On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 16:49 +0100, Peter Wu wrote:
> On Monday 23 December 2013 11:51:12 Martin Mokrejs wrote:
> > Thanks for the note, was just compiling a new 3.10.24 kernel to test it.
> > ;-)
> > 
> > So far just booted an old 3.9 kernel and after plugging in an external
> > USB3 drive I got the message, just to be sure I am still able to reproduce
> > the error and that I have the right .config in the running kernel.
> > 
> > Will wait for another fix instead.
> > Martin
> 
> There is still one thing I do not fully understand, how should
> dev_set_drvdata and dev_get_drvdata be used? For the devices passed
> to probe functions, the core takes care of setting to NULL on error.
> Then device_unregister frees the memory, right?
> 
> Now, what if the dev_set_drvdata (or aliases such as pci_set_drvdata,
> i2c_set_adapinfo, etc.) are manually called outside probe functions?
> Or inside the probe function, but not for the device that is being
> probed (such as is the case with the i801 i2c driver)?
> 
> The VFIO driver also does something odd, it clears the driver data,
> but the device holding it is freed using kfree():
> 
>     static void vfio_device_release(struct kref *kref) {
>         struct vfio_device *device = container_of(kref,
>                                                   struct vfio_device, kref);
>         struct vfio_group *group = device->group;
> 
>         list_del(&device->group_next);
>         mutex_unlock(&group->device_lock);
> 
>         dev_set_drvdata(device->dev, NULL);
> 
>         kfree(device);
> 
> Is a memory leak also present here since dev_set_drvdata() always tries to
> allocate memory?

But it doesn't:

int dev_set_drvdata(struct device *dev, void *data)
{
        int error;

        if (!dev->p) {
                error = device_private_init(dev);
                if (error)
                        return error;
        }
        dev->p->driver_data = data;
        return 0;
}

Also, the code referenced is kfree'ing a struct vfio_device, not the
struct device.  VFIO uses the drvdata to provide a back pointer to the
vfio specific structure, which also includes a pointer to the struct
device.  We obviously want to clear drvdata when the vfio specific
structure is being released.  Thanks,

Alex

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/