linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix two potential mem leaks in MPT Fusion (mpt

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]

Message-Id: <20070801172653.1fd44e99.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2007 17:26:53 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Cc:	Eric Moore <Eric.Moore@....com>, DL-MPTFusionLinux@....com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	support@....com, mpt_linux_developer@....com,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...eleye.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix two potential mem leaks in MPT Fusion
 (mpt_attach())

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 01:55:33 +0200
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com> wrote:

> Greetings & Salutations,
> 
> The Coverity checker spotted two potential memory leaks in 
> drivers/message/fusion/mptbase.c::mpt_attach().
> 
> There are two returns that may leak the storage allocated for 
> 'ioc' (sizeof(MPT_ADAPTER) bytes).
> A simple fix would be to simply add two kfree() calls before 
> the return statements, but a better fix (that this patch 
> implements) is to reorder the code so that if we hit the first 
> return condition we don't have to do the allocation at all and 
> then just add a kfree() call for the second case.
> 
> Please consider applying.  Patch has been compile tested only.
> 
> 

umm,

> ---
> 
>  drivers/message/fusion/mptbase.c |   13 +++++++------
>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/message/fusion/mptbase.c b/drivers/message/fusion/mptbase.c
> index e866dac..f9bb705 100644
> --- a/drivers/message/fusion/mptbase.c
> +++ b/drivers/message/fusion/mptbase.c
> @@ -1393,18 +1393,18 @@ mpt_attach(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
>  	struct proc_dir_entry *dent, *ent;
>  #endif
>  
> +	if (mpt_debug_level)
> +		printk(KERN_INFO MYNAM ": mpt_debug_level=%xh\n", mpt_debug_level);
> +
> +	if (pci_enable_device(pdev))
> +		return r;
> +
>  	ioc = kzalloc(sizeof(MPT_ADAPTER), GFP_ATOMIC);

Why on earth is that using GFP_ATOMIC?  This function later goes on to
create procfs files and such things.




y'know, we could have a debug option which will spit warnings if someone
does a !__GFP_WAIT allocation while !in_atomic() (only works if
CONFIG_PREEMPT).  

But please, make it depend on !CONFIG_AKPM.  I shudder to think about all
the stuff it would pick up.


-
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/