[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZCfQQDkw3D_BXJaZ@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2023 08:33:36 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
Alex Dubov <oakad@...oo.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@...as.ac.cn>,
ye xingchen <ye.xingchen@....com.cn>, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG FIX: [PATCH RFC v3] memstick_check() memleak in kernel
6.1.0+ introduced pre 4.17
On Sat, Apr 01, 2023 at 08:28:07AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2023 at 08:23:26AM +0200, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
> > > This patch is implying that anyone who calls "dev_set_name()" also has
> > > to do this hack, which shouldn't be the case at all.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> > This is my best guess. Unless there is dev_free_name() or kobject_free_name(), I don't
> > see a more sensible way to patch this up.
>
> In sleeping on this, I think this has to move to the driver core. I
> don't understand why we haven't seen this before, except maybe no one
> has really noticed before (i.e. we haven't had good leak detection tools
> that run with removable devices?)
>
> Anyway, let me see if I can come up with something this weekend, give me
> a chance...
Wait, no, this already should be handled by the kobject core, look at
kobject_cleanup(), at the bottom. So your change should be merely
duplicating the logic there that already runs when the struct device is
freed, right?
So I don't understand why your change works, odd. I need more coffee...
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists