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]
Date:   Fri, 12 Apr 2019 16:20:02 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Wang Hai <wanghai26@...wei.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        idosch@...lanox.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
        tyhicks@...onical.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, amritha.nambiar@...el.com,
        joe@...ches.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net-sysfs: Fix memory leak in netdev_register_kobject

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 06:03:27AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On 04/12/2019 01:36 PM, Wang Hai wrote:
> > When registering struct net_device, it will call
> >         register_netdevice ->
> >                 netdev_register_kobject ->
> >                         device_initialize(dev);
> >                         dev_set_name(dev, "%s", ndev->name)
> >                         device_add(dev)
> >                         register_queue_kobjects(ndev)
> > 
> > In netdev_register_kobject(), if device_add(dev) or
> > register_queue_kobjects(ndev) failed. Register_netdevice()
> > will return error, causing netdev_freemem(ndev) to be
> > called to free net_device, however put_device(&dev->dev)->..->
> > kobject_cleanup() won't be called, resulting in a memory leak
> > which is alloced by dev_set_name()
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> Having two patches with exact same title is rather confusing for bug trackers.
> 
> Instead of revert + another_patch, why not just send a cumulative fix ?

The second patch is a reincarnation of the first version of the fix which has
been discussed as not a correct approach. But revert should be applied sooner
as the original commit brought a regression.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko


Powered by blists - more mailing lists