[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190818180559.GB6635@bharath12345-Inspiron-5559>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:35:59 +0530
From: Bharath Vedartham <linux.bhar@...il.com>
To: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...labora.com>
Cc: sumit.semwal@...aro.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: Fix memory leak in dma_buf_set_name
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:14:24PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> Hi Bharath,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to try to fix this report.
>
> However, this doesn't look right.
>
> On Fri, 2019-08-16 at 23:30 +0530, Bharath Vedartham wrote:
> > This patch fixes a memory leak bug reported by syzbot. Link to the
> > bug is given at [1].
> >
> > A local variable name is used to hold the copied user buffer string
> > using strndup_user. strndup_user allocates memory using
> > kmalloc_track_caller in memdup_user. This kmalloc allocation needs to be
> > followed by a kfree.
> >
> > This patch has been tested by a compile test.
> >
> > [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=ce692a3aa13e00e335e090be7846c6eb60ddff7a
> >
> > Reported-by: syzbot+b2098bc44728a4efb3e9@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > Signed-off-by: Bharath Vedartham <linux.bhar@...il.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
> > index f45bfb2..9798f6d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
> > @@ -342,6 +342,7 @@ static long dma_buf_set_name(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, const char __user *buf)
> > }
> > kfree(dmabuf->name);
> > dmabuf->name = name;
> > + kfree(name);
> >
>
> Just by looking at this, you can deduce something is not right.
> You are assigning "name" to dmabuf->name, but then releasing "name"!
>
> So now, dmabuf->name has free memory, which will lead to
> user-after-free issues.
>
> Note also, that this function doesn't look leaky since the previous
> "name" is freed, before setting a new one.
>
> Maybe the syzbot report is some kind of false positive?
>
> Also, I _strongly_ suggest that in the future you don't compile-test
> only these kind of not trivial fixes. Since you are touching a crucial
> part of the kernel here, you should really be testing properly.
>
> Specially since syzbot produces a reproducer.
>
> Consider compile test as something you do when your changes are
> only cosmetic, and you are completely and absolutely sure things
> will be OK.
>
> Thanks.
> Ezequiel
Hi Ezequiel,
Thank you for taking the time to review this.
I made a mistake here and thank you for notifying me of it.
Thank you for your comments, I ll keep them in mind before sending
patches to the kernel :)
Thank you
Bharath
Powered by blists - more mailing lists