linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][QUESTION] Intentional memory leak in ipmi

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: <56C7154F.3040604@acm.org>
Date:	Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:14:55 -0600
From:	Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
To:	Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>,
	openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH][QUESTION] Intentional memory leak in ipmi_msghandler?

On 02/19/2016 12:41 AM, Calvin Owens wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've got a few boxes that are leaking memory in handle_new_recv_msgs()
> in ipmi_msghandler. AFAICS this is intentional, there's even an explicit
> counter that tracks the number of times smi_msg is leaked.

Are you 100% sure about this?  There's no intentional leak, a negative 
return
from this function means the message was used for another purpose and
thus shouldn't be freed.  There's only one situation where this happens and
you should never hit it in normal operation.

> I'm guessing there was a reason for doing this, but there wasn't any
> discussion about it on LKML when the patch was accepted. Can you clarify
> why something like the below patch won't work? I tried it on one of my
> leaky boxes and nothing obviously horrible happened.

Well, that's because nothing probably happened, and it probably had no
effect on the leak.  A better comment on this code is probably in order.
But that patch is incorrect.

I doubt the leak is here.  If you are having a leak, is it possible to 
characterize
it better?  Are you handling commands from IPMB?  Are you handling LAN
commands here?

-corey

>
> Thanks,
> Calvin
>
> ----8<----
> From: Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>
> Subject: [PATCH] ipmi_msghandler: Don't leak memory on errors
>
> Signed-off-by: Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>
> ---
>   drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 5 +----
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
> index 94fb407..ed82ffa 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
> @@ -3834,10 +3834,7 @@ static void handle_new_recv_msgs(ipmi_smi_t intf)
>   			break;
>   		} else {
>   			list_del(&smi_msg->link);
> -			if (rv == 0)
> -				/* Message handled */
> -				ipmi_free_smi_msg(smi_msg);
> -			/* If rv < 0, fatal error, del but don't free. */
> +			ipmi_free_smi_msg(smi_msg);
>   		}
>   	}
>   	if (!run_to_completion)