linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] net-sysfs: Fix memory leak in netdev_register

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: <6108464a-fef4-c1c9-49ad-c2dd456476e9@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Apr 2019 21:28:28 +0800
From:   "wanghai (M)" <wanghai26@...wei.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.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>,
        <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, <stephen@...workplumber.org>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net-sysfs: Fix memory leak in netdev_register_kobject


在 2019/4/12 21:03, Eric Dumazet 写道:
>
> 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 ?
>
Thanks, if I fix it, I will send a cumulative fix again