[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200622193109.GA2163148@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 21:31:09 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Ronald Tschalär <ronald@...ovation.ch>,
Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: debugfs_create_u32_array() memory leaks
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:23:32PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 09:45:42 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 04:17:34PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I'm trying to use debugfs_create_u32_array() in drivers/net/netdevsim
> > > and it causes memory leaks:
> > >
> > > unreferenced object 0xffff8880546642a0 (size 16):
> > > comm "test_udp_tuns.s", pid 2146, jiffies 4294928368 (age 3772.435s)
> > > hex dump (first 16 bytes):
> > > 84 52 6a 4d 80 88 ff ff 04 00 00 00 f3 78 7e 89 .RjM.........x~.
> > > backtrace:
> > > [<000000006962a447>] debugfs_create_u32_array+0x3f/0x90
> > >
> > > I can see that debugfs_create_u32_array() allocates a structure at
> > > create time that ends up assigned to inode->i_private, but I don't
> > > see it freed anywhere.
> > >
> > > Am I missing something? I'm pretty sure files get removed, cause the
> > > driver calls debugfs_remove_recursive() and no other file types leaks.
> >
> > Yeah, that's a bug, nice catch. The debugfs_create*() functions should
> > not allocate local memory as we can't know to free that memory when the
> > file is removed.
> >
> > Can you fix this up, or do you want me to? I only see one in-kernel
> > user of this, so it shouldn't be that tough to do so. The one user
> > never removes that file so that's why no one noticed this before.
>
> Ah, I wasn't sure how to fix but since you say that create functions
> shouldn't allocate memory seems like the fix will be to make callers
> pass an equivalent of struct debugfs_blob_wrapper for u32.
Sounds good.
> I'm happy to send a patch to that effect - I have a process question
> tho - I need this change in net-next, should I sent the patch to you?
> Can it still make it into 5.8 (debugfs -> Linus -> net -> net-next) or
> perhaps can it go via net-next since there is no de facto bug in 5.8?
I can take a fix now, and get it into 5.8 if that makes things easier
for you.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists