linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH]s390/char/vmur.c: memory leak Fix in the driver

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: <20120319113744.5992d48f@de.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:37:44 +0100
From:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To:	"Chen, Dennis (SRDC SW)" <Dennis1.Chen@....com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"beattiem@...ibm.com" <beattiem@...ibm.com>,
	"holzheu@...ibm.com" <holzheu@...ibm.com>,
	"munzert@...ibm.com" <munzert@...ibm.com>,
	"linux390@...ibm.com" <linux390@...ibm.com>,
	"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	"heiko.carstens@...ibm.com" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]s390/char/vmur.c: memory leak Fix in the driver

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:55:40 +0000
"Chen, Dennis (SRDC SW)" <Dennis1.Chen@....com> wrote:

> CC'ing maintainer: Martin Schwidefsky &  Heiko Carstens...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chen, Dennis (SRDC SW) 
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 3:41 AM
> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: beattiem@...ibm.com; holzheu@...ibm.com; munzert@...ibm.com; linux390@...ibm.com; linux-s390@...r.kernel.org; Chen, Dennis (SRDC SW)
> Subject: [PATCH]s390/char/vmur.c: memory leak Fix in the driver
> 
> This patch is used to fix a memory leak issue in s390/char/vmur.c: a character device instance is 
> allocated by cdev_alloc, the cdev_del will not free that space if cdev_init is applied before. 
> 
> Signed-off-by: dennis1.chen@....com
> --- a/s390/char/vmur.c  2012-03-18 02:50:47.950963949 +0800
> +++ b/s390/char/vmur.c  2012-03-18 03:12:04.790936740 +0800
> @@ -903,7 +903,7 @@ static int ur_set_online(struct ccw_devi
>                 goto fail_urdev_put;
>         }
> 
> -       cdev_init(urd->char_device, &ur_fops);
> +       urd->char_device->ops = &ur_fops;
>         urd->char_device->dev = MKDEV(major, minor);
>         urd->char_device->owner = ur_fops.owner;
> 

How does that fix anything? My copy of cdev_init looks like this:

void cdev_init(struct cdev *cdev, const struct file_operations *fops)
{
        memset(cdev, 0, sizeof *cdev);
        INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cdev->list);
        kobject_init(&cdev->kobj, &ktype_cdev_default);
        cdev->ops = fops;
}

It does not allocate anything but it initializes some more fields.
The new code would only initialize the ops field. In addition
cdev_del does a kobject_put and the release function of the object
will call cdev_dynamic_release as far as I can tell. That code
should be fine as it is.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

--
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/