[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200908131455.15381.paul.moore@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:55:15 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
To: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>
Cc: jmorris@...ei.org, eparis@...isplace.org, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
serue@...ibm.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: fix memory leak in sel_make_bools
On Thursday 13 August 2009 04:26:16 am Xiaotian Feng wrote:
> In sel_make_bools, kernel allocates memory for bool_pending_names[i]
> with security_get_bools. So if we just free bool_pending_names, those
> memories for bool_pending_names[i] will be leaked.
>
> This patch resolves dozens of following kmemleak report after resuming
> from suspend:
> unreferenced object 0xffff88022e4c7380 (size 32):
> comm "init", pid 1, jiffies 4294677173
> backtrace:
> [<ffffffff810f76b5>] create_object+0x1a2/0x2a9
> [<ffffffff810f78bb>] kmemleak_alloc+0x26/0x4b
> [<ffffffff810ef3eb>] __kmalloc+0x18f/0x1b8
> [<ffffffff811cd511>] security_get_bools+0xd7/0x16f
> [<ffffffff811c48c0>] sel_write_load+0x12e/0x62b
> [<ffffffff810f9a39>] vfs_write+0xae/0x10b
> [<ffffffff810f9b56>] sys_write+0x4a/0x6e
> [<ffffffff81011b82>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>
> ---
> security/selinux/selinuxfs.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c b/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
> index b4fc506..ab93472 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
> +++ b/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
> @@ -979,7 +979,11 @@ static int sel_make_bools(void)
> u32 sid;
>
> /* remove any existing files */
> - kfree(bool_pending_names);
> + if (bool_pending_names) {
> + for (i = 0; i < bool_num; i++)
> + kfree(bool_pending_names[i]);
> + kfree(bool_pending_names);
> + }
> kfree(bool_pending_values);
> bool_pending_names = NULL;
> bool_pending_values = NULL;
Since the code seems to rely on 'bool_num' in other places to ensure we don't
walk off the end of the array it is probably safe to omit the 'if
(bool_pending_names) ...' conditional and just rely on the for loop to do the
right thing.
--
paul moore
linux @ hp
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists