linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: fix memory leak in kvm_io_bus_unregister

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200904143753.GE31464@embeddedor>
Date:   Fri, 4 Sep 2020 09:37:53 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc:     Rustam Kovhaev <rkovhaev@...il.com>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: fix memory leak in kvm_io_bus_unregister_dev()

On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 02:04:23PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Rustam Kovhaev <rkovhaev@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 06:34:11PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> On 9/2/20 17:57, Rustam Kovhaev wrote:
> >> > when kmalloc() fails in kvm_io_bus_unregister_dev(), before removing
> >> > the bus, we should iterate over all other devices linked to it and call
> >> > kvm_iodevice_destructor() for them
> >> > 
> >> > Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+f196caa45793d6374707@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> >> > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=f196caa45793d6374707
> >> > Signed-off-by: Rustam Kovhaev <rkovhaev@...il.com>
> >> > Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
> >> 
> >> I think it's worthwhile to add a Fixes tag for this, too.
> >> 
> >> Please, see more comments below...
[..]
> >
> > hi Gustavo, thank you for the review, i'll send the new patch.
> > Vitaly, i think i will need to drop your "Reviewed-by", because there is
> > going to be a bit more changes
> >
> 
> Personally, I'd prefer to make struct_size()/flex_array_size() a
> separate preparatory patch so the real fix is small but I don't have a
> strong opinion. I'll take look at v3 so feel free to drop R-b if you
> decide to make a combined patch and feel free to keep it if you make the
> preparatory changes separate :-)
> 

I agree. A two-patch series is much better in this case.

Rustam - please add a Fixes tag to the first patch and see if it can be
applied to -stable. If so, you should Cc stable@...r.kernel.org, too.

Thanks
--
Gustavo