linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: boston: fix memory leak of 'onecell' on error return paths

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 16 May 2018 14:42:54 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: boston: fix memory leak of 'onecell' on error
 return paths

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:28:40AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Dan Carpenter (2018-05-09 23:59:51)
> > It would be nice to make things static check clean.  One idea would be
> > that the static checker could ignore resource leaks in __init functions.
> > 
> 
> Typically if the stuff is so important that it doesn't work without it
> then we throw in a panic() or a BUG() call to indicate that all hope is
> lost. Otherwise, I'm not sure what's wrong with adding in proper error
> paths for clean recovery.

In clk_boston_setup() then we'd have to put a ton of BUG()s in there to
silence all the warnings.  Right now the static checkers only care about
kmalloc() but in a year or two they'll be clever enough to care about
everything leaked in this function.  I don't think adding BUG() calls
is a good idea.

Plus, I have a private static checker warning for that.  When the BTRFS
filesystem was merged 10 years ago it used to call BUG() all the time if
allocations failed so I made a static checker warning to spot that
anti-pattern...

regards,
dan carpenter