linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rmap: fix anon_vma

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: <r2y28c262361004050848v75fc5397j7c5aafa9c0c6206e@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:48:35 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	sgunderson@...foot.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rmap: fix anon_vma_fork() memory leak

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>> Fix a memory leak in anon_vma_fork(), where we fail to tear down the
>> anon_vmas attached to the new VMA in case setting up the new anon_vma
>> fails.
>>
>> Reported-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
>> ---
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> index fcd593c..fb7ce99 100644
>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> @@ -231,6 +231,7 @@ int anon_vma_fork(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_area_struct *pvma)
>>
>>   out_error_free_anon_vma:
>>       anon_vma_free(anon_vma);
>> +     unlink_anon_vmas(vma);
>>   out_error:
>>       return -ENOMEM;
>>  }
>
> This looks _very_ wrong to me.
>
> Shouldn't the unlink_anon_vmas() be in the "out_error" case? IOW, we
> should do it even if the "anon_vma_alloc()" failed, nbot just if the
> "anon_vma_chain_alloc()" failed?
>
> No?
>
> What am I missing?

Indeed. You're right.
I should have been reviewed more carefully.



-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/