linux-kernel - Re: [v3] tools/bootconfig: fix resource leak in apply

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, 8 May 2020 17:45:27 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>,
        Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Shiyuan Hu <hushiyuan@...wei.com>,
        Hewenliang <hewenliang4@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [v3] tools/bootconfig: fix resource leak in apply_xbc()

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 09:00:53AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:42:56 +0800
> Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 2020/5/8 19:30, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > >> this change can fix the warning of tools.  
> > > 
> > > Would you like to point any specific source code analysis tools out
> > > for this issue?
> > > (Can a corresponding attribution become relevant for a clearer
> > > change description?)
> > >   
> > The tools we used is not for open source. it point out some error description like
> > "Memory leak: data" and "Resource leak: fd" in tools/bootconfig/main.c.
> > 
> > Can I only description:
> >   "Memory and resource leak is found by a static code analysis tools" ? thanks.
> 
> Markus please stop! Your suggestions are just your preferences that are not
> required for the kernel.
> 
> Yunfeng, your v2 was fine and has already landed in Linus's tree. Feel free
> to ignore Markus's suggestions in the future.

There was actually a bug in v2.  It exits with a non-zero instead of
zero on success so it will mess up people's scripts.

regards,
dan carpenter