linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hw breakpoint: Fix possible 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: <20120227233828.GE30232@somewhere.redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:38:31 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw breakpoint: Fix possible memory leak

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:40:38PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > 2012-02-27 (월), 12:56 +0100, Ingo Molnar:
> > > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 11:44 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > I edited that code earlier today - is the form below OK, or can 
> > > > > you see a simpler method? It's not yet pushed out so can still 
> > > > > edit it. 
> > > > 
> > > > I think something like the below should do, but then I didn't really
> > > > think much about it, my thoughts went like:
> > > > 
> > > > ... *shees* that's ugly
> > > >   ... that error path already does a loop
> > > >     ... what the problem is!? -- reread changelog
> > > >       ... err_cpu == cpu is placed wrong!
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > So I replied and marked read.. waiting to either hear if there's a good
> > > > reason to do ugly or find a new (tested) patch in my inbox.. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > >  kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c |    4 ++--
> > > >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c b/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c
> > > > index b0309f7..3330022 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c
> > > > @@ -658,10 +658,10 @@ int __init init_hw_breakpoint(void)
> > > >  
> > > >   err_alloc:
> > > >  	for_each_possible_cpu(err_cpu) {
> > > > -		if (err_cpu == cpu)
> > > > -			break;
> > > >  		for (i = 0; i < TYPE_MAX; i++)
> > > >  			kfree(per_cpu(nr_task_bp_pinned[i], cpu));
> > > > +		if (err_cpu == cpu)
> > > > +			break;
> > > >  	}
> > > 
> > > Looks a lot nicer - I'll wait for an updated patch.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > 	Ingo
> > 
> > Ingo, do you want me to resend? If so, I really don't know how 
> > to give the credit to Peter in this case.
> 
> Just mention it in the changelog that this solution was his 
> idea. It was you who did most of the work: found the bug, wrote 
> the patch, wrote the changelog and tested the final patch ;-)

And please add my Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.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/