| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20230607200904.227581241@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 22:17:01 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
patches@...ts.linux.dev,
Mirsad Goran Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>,
Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>,
Tianfei zhang <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 5.10 105/120] test_firmware: fix the memory leak of the allocated firmware buffer
From: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>
commit 48e156023059e57a8fc68b498439832f7600ffff upstream.
The following kernel memory leak was noticed after running
tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh:
[root@...mtodorov firmware]# cat /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak
.
.
.
unreferenced object 0xffff955389bc3400 (size 1024):
comm "test_firmware-0", pid 5451, jiffies 4294944822 (age 65.652s)
hex dump (first 32 bytes):
47 48 34 35 36 37 0a 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 GH4567..........
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
backtrace:
[<ffffffff962f5dec>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0x8c/0x3c0
[<ffffffff962fcca4>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x184/0x240
[<ffffffff962704de>] kmalloc_trace+0x2e/0xc0
[<ffffffff9665b42d>] test_fw_run_batch_request+0x9d/0x180
[<ffffffff95fd813b>] kthread+0x10b/0x140
[<ffffffff95e033e9>] ret_from_fork+0x29/0x50
unreferenced object 0xffff9553c334b400 (size 1024):
comm "test_firmware-1", pid 5452, jiffies 4294944822 (age 65.652s)
hex dump (first 32 bytes):
47 48 34 35 36 37 0a 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 GH4567..........
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
backtrace:
[<ffffffff962f5dec>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0x8c/0x3c0
[<ffffffff962fcca4>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x184/0x240
[<ffffffff962704de>] kmalloc_trace+0x2e/0xc0
[<ffffffff9665b42d>] test_fw_run_batch_request+0x9d/0x180
[<ffffffff95fd813b>] kthread+0x10b/0x140
[<ffffffff95e033e9>] ret_from_fork+0x29/0x50
unreferenced object 0xffff9553c334f000 (size 1024):
comm "test_firmware-2", pid 5453, jiffies 4294944822 (age 65.652s)
hex dump (first 32 bytes):
47 48 34 35 36 37 0a 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 GH4567..........
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
backtrace:
[<ffffffff962f5dec>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0x8c/0x3c0
[<ffffffff962fcca4>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x184/0x240
[<ffffffff962704de>] kmalloc_trace+0x2e/0xc0
[<ffffffff9665b42d>] test_fw_run_batch_request+0x9d/0x180
[<ffffffff95fd813b>] kthread+0x10b/0x140
[<ffffffff95e033e9>] ret_from_fork+0x29/0x50
unreferenced object 0xffff9553c3348400 (size 1024):
comm "test_firmware-3", pid 5454, jiffies 4294944822 (age 65.652s)
hex dump (first 32 bytes):
47 48 34 35 36 37 0a 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 GH4567..........
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
backtrace:
[<ffffffff962f5dec>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0x8c/0x3c0
[<ffffffff962fcca4>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x184/0x240
[<ffffffff962704de>] kmalloc_trace+0x2e/0xc0
[<ffffffff9665b42d>] test_fw_run_batch_request+0x9d/0x180
[<ffffffff95fd813b>] kthread+0x10b/0x140
[<ffffffff95e033e9>] ret_from_fork+0x29/0x50
[root@...mtodorov firmware]#
Note that the size 1024 corresponds to the size of the test firmware
buffer. The actual number of the buffers leaked is around 70-110,
depending on the test run.
The cause of the leak is the following:
request_partial_firmware_into_buf() and request_firmware_into_buf()
provided firmware buffer isn't released on release_firmware(), we
have allocated it and we are responsible for deallocating it manually.
This is introduced in a number of context where previously only
release_firmware() was called, which was insufficient.
Reported-by: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>
Fixes: 7feebfa487b92 ("test_firmware: add support for request_firmware_into_buf")
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>
Cc: Tianfei zhang <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc: Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>
Cc: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>
Cc: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # v5.4
Signed-off-by: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230509084746.48259-3-mirsad.todorovac@alu.unizg.hr
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
lib/test_firmware.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/lib/test_firmware.c
+++ b/lib/test_firmware.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ struct test_batched_req {
bool sent;
const struct firmware *fw;
const char *name;
+ const char *fw_buf;
struct completion completion;
struct task_struct *task;
struct device *dev;
@@ -143,8 +144,14 @@ static void __test_release_all_firmware(
for (i = 0; i < test_fw_config->num_requests; i++) {
req = &test_fw_config->reqs[i];
- if (req->fw)
+ if (req->fw) {
+ if (req->fw_buf) {
+ kfree_const(req->fw_buf);
+ req->fw_buf = NULL;
+ }
release_firmware(req->fw);
+ req->fw = NULL;
+ }
}
vfree(test_fw_config->reqs);
@@ -589,6 +596,8 @@ static ssize_t trigger_request_store(str
mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex);
release_firmware(test_firmware);
+ if (test_fw_config->reqs)
+ __test_release_all_firmware();
test_firmware = NULL;
rc = request_firmware(&test_firmware, name, dev);
if (rc) {
@@ -689,6 +698,8 @@ static ssize_t trigger_async_request_sto
mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex);
release_firmware(test_firmware);
test_firmware = NULL;
+ if (test_fw_config->reqs)
+ __test_release_all_firmware();
rc = request_firmware_nowait(THIS_MODULE, 1, name, dev, GFP_KERNEL,
NULL, trigger_async_request_cb);
if (rc) {
@@ -731,6 +742,8 @@ static ssize_t trigger_custom_fallback_s
mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex);
release_firmware(test_firmware);
+ if (test_fw_config->reqs)
+ __test_release_all_firmware();
test_firmware = NULL;
rc = request_firmware_nowait(THIS_MODULE, FW_ACTION_NOHOTPLUG, name,
dev, GFP_KERNEL, NULL,
@@ -793,6 +806,8 @@ static int test_fw_run_batch_request(voi
test_fw_config->buf_size);
if (!req->fw)
kfree(test_buf);
+ else
+ req->fw_buf = test_buf;
} else {
req->rc = test_fw_config->req_firmware(&req->fw,
req->name,
@@ -848,6 +863,7 @@ static ssize_t trigger_batched_requests_
req->fw = NULL;
req->idx = i;
req->name = test_fw_config->name;
+ req->fw_buf = NULL;
req->dev = dev;
init_completion(&req->completion);
req->task = kthread_run(test_fw_run_batch_request, req,
@@ -947,6 +963,7 @@ ssize_t trigger_batched_requests_async_s
for (i = 0; i < test_fw_config->num_requests; i++) {
req = &test_fw_config->reqs[i];
req->name = test_fw_config->name;
+ req->fw_buf = NULL;
req->fw = NULL;
req->idx = i;
init_completion(&req->completion);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists