linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/workqueue.c: kfree issue, need check flag 'WQ

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 15 May 2013 14:11:16 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/workqueue.c: kfree issue, need check flag
 'WQ_UNBOUND' when processing failure.

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 09:34:36AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 05/14/2013 11:20 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 09:06:40PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> >>  err_destroy:
> >>  	destroy_workqueue(wq);
> >> +	if (flags & WQ_UNBOUND) {
> >> +err_free_wq:
> >> +		free_workqueue_attrs(wq->unbound_attrs);
> >> +		kfree(wq);
> >> +	}
> > 
> > Doesn't the above make the code free wq twice on after err_destroy?
> > 
> 
> Oh, it is my fault. I did not see the put_pwq_unlocked() in details,
> next I should read the code carefully.

We're still leaking unbound_attrs in the failure path, right?  We can
probably just add unconditional free_workqueue_attrs() in err_free_wq?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/