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 21:33:34 +0800
From:   "wanghai (M)" <wanghai26@...wei.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:     <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


在 2019/4/12 21:20, Andy Shevchenko 写道:
> 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.

Thanks for letting me know. Now should I resend a separate revert, or do 
you just review the first patch?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists