[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100726234541.GA26421@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:45:41 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@...eaurora.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Driver core: Fix memory leak on bus_register error
path
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 06:19:23PM -0700, Patrick Pannuto wrote:
> On 07/22/2010 04:41 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 03:09:02PM -0700, Patrick Pannuto wrote:
> >> There is a subtle memory leak in driver core error path.
> >> Consider the simplified view of bus_register (drivers/base/bus.c):
> >>
> >> priv = kzalloc...
> >> kobject_set_name(&priv->subsys.kobj,...) <== allocate in priv->subsys.kobj.name
> >> if kset_register(&priv->subsys) FAILS:
> >
> > Why would this fail?
> >
>
> This is not a likely failure path at all, but (from my understanding), it
> is possible:
>
> kset_register {
> kobject_add_internal {
> create_dir()
>
> is the most likely candidate to fail, mostly likely for EEXIST due to something
> else screwy going on. Regardless of how likely it is to fail, it *is* possible,
> otherwise, what is the point of checking the return code and having an error
> path? If the error path exists (and a panic is not eminent), we shouldn't leak
> memory on it IMHO.
I agree, within reason. If the memory leak is not going to happen on a
working system, then digging into the kobject internals like this isn't
worth it, don't you agree?
> >> retval = kset_register(&priv->subsys);
> >> - if (retval)
> >> + if (retval) {
> >> + kfree(priv->subsys.kobj.name);
> >
> > I don't think we want to bury the logic of how kobject names are handled
> > up here in the bus code, right? Shouldn't the subsys kobject name be
> > able to be cleaned up on its own somehow instead?
> >
>
> So, my first instinct was to use kobject_cleanup, but a few lines above:
>
> priv->subsys.kobj.ktype = &bus_ktype;
>
> and bus_ktype's definition, with the notable absence of a release method:
>
> static struct kobj_type bus_ktype = {
> .sysfs_ops = &bus_sysfs_ops,
> };
>
> which in kobject_cleanup would yield:
>
> struct kobj_type *t = get_ktype(kobj);
>
> if (t && !t->release)
> pr_debug("kobject: '%s' (%p): does not have a release() "
> "function, it is broken and must be fixed.\n",
> kobject_name(kobj), kobj);
>
> (if I understand everything correctly)
But yet it doesn't :)
You might want to dig further to figure out why if you are curious.
> I have no idea what would constitute a proper 'release' method in this
> context, thus I did not write one (and am hoping this patchset would
> motivate those who know more than me to write one, or indicate to me how
> to write one, if that would be the correct course of action)
Leave it as-is, right?
> Sorry if any of this is trivial / obvious / incorrect; it's my first time
> in this code at all, and kobject and friends aren't the easiest to
> comprehend on first glance :)
I agree, they aren't simple, any areas you can find to make them simpler
to understand is always appreciated.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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