linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: Fix reference count leak in iscsi_boot_create

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 12:09:06 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Qiushi Wu <wu000273@....edu>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        open-iscsi@...glegroups.com
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Chris Leech <cleech@...hat.com>,
        "James E. J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>, Lee Duncan <lduncan@...e.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Fix reference count leak in
 iscsi_boot_create_kobj()

> kobject_init_and_add() should be handled when it return an error,
> because kobject_init_and_add() takes reference even when it fails.

I find this wording approach improvable.

> Previous commit "b8eb718348b8" fixed a similar problem.

I suggest to omit this information from the commit message.

> Thus replace calling kfree() by calling kobject_put().

How do you think about a wording variant like the following?

   Thus replace a call of the function “kfree” by “kobject_put”
   because of using kernel objects in the proper way.

Please take another look also at the message field “To”.
Which recipients should be specified there first?

Regards,
Markus