linux-kernel - Re: [linux-karma-devel] [PATCH] omfs: fix memory leak

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: <20100705140008.GA3378@hash.localnet>
Date:	Mon, 5 Jul 2010 10:00:08 -0400
From:	me@...copeland.com
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave.bueso@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-karma-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-karma-devel] [PATCH] omfs: fix memory leak

On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 01:12:39AM -0400, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> Isn't put_super() called to free data when things run "normally", like
> for unmounting? So this function does two things:

Ok, I checked it out and you are right, FS put_super is only called
after successful mount so there is a leak.  I'll take your patch,
but please:

 - remove the /* success */ comment, IMO it's just noise
 - write the if conditional as the more usual:

        if (ret)

> kfree(sbi->s_imap)
> kfree(sbi)
> 
> However, in omfs_get_imap() 'sbi->s_imap' is freed upon failure, so
> wouldn't this also crash on the first kfree in omfs_put_super()?

This is ok, since sbi->s_imap is set to null in that case and
kfree(NULL) is fine.

Thanks for the review!
 
-- 
Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com

--
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/