linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] of/pci: Fix memory leak in of_pci_get_host_bridge

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: <CAL_JsqLiZB2cQ1h+hFdRm4HXvi9WRL6HsUDvW8SxqjwVndbTxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:55:12 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        toshi.kani@....com, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] of/pci: Fix memory leak in of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com> wrote:
>> Currently we only free the allocated resource struct when error.
>> This would cause memory leak after pci_free_resource_list.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>
>> ---
>>
>>  drivers/of/of_pci.c | 48 +++++++++++++++---------------------------------
>>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_pci.c b/drivers/of/of_pci.c
>> index 0ee42c3..269393bc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/of_pci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/of_pci.c
>> @@ -189,9 +189,7 @@ int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev,
>>                         unsigned char busno, unsigned char bus_max,
>>                         struct list_head *resources, resource_size_t *io_base)
>>  {
>> -       struct resource_entry *window;
>> -       struct resource *res;
>> -       struct resource *bus_range;
>> +       struct resource res;
>>         struct of_pci_range range;
>>         struct of_pci_range_parser parser;
>>         char range_type[4];
>> @@ -200,24 +198,19 @@ int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev,
>>         if (io_base)
>>                 *io_base = (resource_size_t)OF_BAD_ADDR;
>>
>> -       bus_range = kzalloc(sizeof(*bus_range), GFP_KERNEL);
>> -       if (!bus_range)
>> -               return -ENOMEM;
>> -
>>         pr_info("host bridge %s ranges:\n", dev->full_name);
>>
>> -       err = of_pci_parse_bus_range(dev, bus_range);
>> +       err = of_pci_parse_bus_range(dev, &res);
>>         if (err) {
>> -               bus_range->start = busno;
>> -               bus_range->end = bus_max;
>> -               bus_range->flags = IORESOURCE_BUS;
>> -               pr_info("  No bus range found for %s, using %pR\n",
>> -                       dev->full_name, bus_range);
>> +               res.start = busno;
>> +               res.end = bus_max;
>> +               res.flags = IORESOURCE_BUS;
>> +               pr_info("  No bus range found for %s\n", dev->full_name);
>>         } else {
>> -               if (bus_range->end > bus_range->start + bus_max)
>> -                       bus_range->end = bus_range->start + bus_max;
>> +               if (res.end > res.start + bus_max)
>> +                       res.end = res.start + bus_max;
>>         }
>> -       pci_add_resource(resources, bus_range);
>> +       pci_add_resource(resources, &res);
>
> You are passing a stack variable to pci_add_resource and it doesn't
> make a copy of it. I assume the resource needs to live after you exit
> this function.

Ah, found your 1st patch changing the behavior. I'm surprised that
change works without affecting anyone else.

> If we have a leak, can't you just add a free in the correct spot? That
> would be a lot easier to review.
>
> Rob