[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20111215141945.add405d5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:19:45 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for binary_sysctl() memory leak
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:44:12 -0800
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com> wrote:
> binary_sysctl() calls sysctl_getname() which allocates from
> names_cache slab usin __getname()
>
> The matching function to free the name is __putname(), and not
> putname() which should be used only to match getname() allocations.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
> ---
> kernel/sysctl_binary.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sysctl_binary.c b/kernel/sysctl_binary.c
> index e8bffbe..2ce1b30 100644
> --- a/kernel/sysctl_binary.c
> +++ b/kernel/sysctl_binary.c
> @@ -1354,7 +1354,7 @@ static ssize_t binary_sysctl(const int *name, int nlen,
>
> fput(file);
> out_putname:
> - putname(pathname);
> + __putname(pathname);
> out:
> return result;
> }
I think the patch is correct but the description is misleading?
I see no memory leak here. Calling __putname() directly simply
bypasses some audit-related stuff.
--
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