[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <65CF80EF-EA58-4126-889D-07A8FF9D52DB@holtmann.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:21:05 +0200
From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
"Gustavo F. Padovan" <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
"open list:BLUETOOTH DRIVERS" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Bluetooth: btusb: Fix memory leak in play_deferred
Hi Jeffy,
> Currently in play_deferred, we are calling usb_submit_urb directly to
> submit deferred tx urb after unanchor it.
>
> So the usb_giveback_urb_bh would failed to unref it in usb_unanchor_urb
> and cause memory leak:
> unreferenced object 0xffffffc0ce0fa400 (size 256):
> ...
> backtrace:
> [<ffffffc00034a9a8>] __save_stack_trace+0x48/0x6c
> [<ffffffc00034b088>] create_object+0x138/0x254
> [<ffffffc0009d5504>] kmemleak_alloc+0x58/0x8c
> [<ffffffc000345f78>] __kmalloc+0x1d4/0x2a0
> [<ffffffc0006765bc>] usb_alloc_urb+0x30/0x60
> [<ffffffbffc128598>] alloc_ctrl_urb+0x38/0x120 [btusb]
> [<ffffffbffc129e7c>] btusb_send_frame+0x64/0xf8 [btusb]
>
> Use submit_tx_urb instead for better error handling and avoid the leak.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>
> ---
>
> drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
> index 278e811..b469f9b 100644
> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
> @@ -3254,11 +3254,12 @@ static int btusb_suspend(struct usb_interface *intf, pm_message_t message)
>
> static void play_deferred(struct btusb_data *data)
> {
> + struct hci_dev *hdev = data->hdev;
> struct urb *urb;
> int err;
>
> while ((urb = usb_get_from_anchor(&data->deferred))) {
> - err = usb_submit_urb(urb, GFP_ATOMIC);
> + err = submit_tx_urb(hdev, urb);
> if (err < 0)
> break;
so why not just fix the memory leak here and instead call submit_tx_urb. I am not sure that is actually the right approach. Why anchor this URB now to the TX anchor now? Is that actually safe?
Regards
Marcel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists