[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180604212704.GC1351649@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 14:27:04 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: "linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, chandan.vn@...sung.com,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"bfields@...ldses.org" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
"jlayton@...nel.org" <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
CPGS <cpgs@...sung.com>,
Sireesha Talluri <sireesha.t@...sung.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Smack: Fix memory leak in smack_inode_getsecctx
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:01:34PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 6/1/2018 10:45 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > Fix memory leak in smack_inode_getsecctx
> >
> > The implementation of smack_inode_getsecctx() made
> > incorrect assumptions about how Smack presents a security
> > context. Smack does not need to allocate memory to support
> > security contexts, so "releasing" a Smack context is a no-op.
> > The code made an unnecessary copy and returned that as a
> > context, which was never freed. The revised implementation
> > returns the context correctly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
>
> Tejun, does this pass your tests?
Oh, I'm not the one who reported. Chandan?
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists