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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2021 12:08:31 +0800 (GMT+08:00) From: dinghao.liu@....edu.cn To: "Lu Baolu" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com> Cc: kjlu@....edu, "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@...radead.org>, "Joerg Roedel" <joro@...tes.org>, "Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>, "Jiang Liu" <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] iommu/intel: Fix memleak in intel_irq_remapping_alloc > Hi, > > On 2021/1/2 17:50, Dinghao Liu wrote: > > When irq_domain_get_irq_data() or irqd_cfg() fails > > meanwhile i == 0, data allocated by kzalloc() has not > > been freed before returning, which leads to memleak. > > > > Fixes: b106ee63abccb ("irq_remapping/vt-d: Enhance Intel IR driver to support hierarchical irqdomains") > > Signed-off-by: Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@....edu.cn> > > --- > > drivers/iommu/intel/irq_remapping.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/irq_remapping.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/irq_remapping.c > > index aeffda92b10b..cdaeed36750f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/irq_remapping.c > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/irq_remapping.c > > @@ -1354,6 +1354,8 @@ static int intel_irq_remapping_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain, > > irq_cfg = irqd_cfg(irq_data); > > if (!irq_data || !irq_cfg) { > > ret = -EINVAL; > > + kfree(data); > > + data = NULL; > > Do you need to check (i == 0) here? @data will not be used anymore as it > goes to out branch, why setting it to NULL here? > data will be passed to ire_data->chip_data when i == 0 and intel_free_irq_resources() will free it on failure. Thus I set it to NULL to prevent double-free. However, if we add a check (i == 0) here, we will not need to set it to NULL. If this is better, I will resend a new patch soon. Regards, Dinghao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists