[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3d5f782e-6ce6-52c1-4cd1-b210768b5128@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 13:27:09 +0200 (EET)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: "David E. Box" <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, rajvi.jingar@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 01/20] platform/x86/intel/vsec: Fix xa_alloc memory
leak
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023, David E. Box wrote:
> Fixes memory leak, caught be kmemleak, due to failure to erase auxiliary
> device entries from an xarray on removal.
>
> Signed-off-by: David E. Box <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>
Changelog is quite terse, please improve ;-).
Missing Fixes tag.
> ---
> V5 - New patch
>
> drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++--------
> drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec.c
> index c1f9e4471b28..ae811bb65910 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec.c
> @@ -120,6 +120,8 @@ static void intel_vsec_dev_release(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct intel_vsec_device *intel_vsec_dev = dev_to_ivdev(dev);
>
> + xa_erase(&auxdev_array, intel_vsec_dev->id);
> +
> mutex_lock(&vsec_ida_lock);
> ida_free(intel_vsec_dev->ida, intel_vsec_dev->auxdev.id);
> mutex_unlock(&vsec_ida_lock);
> @@ -136,9 +138,21 @@ int intel_vsec_add_aux(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct device *parent,
> int ret, id;
>
> mutex_lock(&vsec_ida_lock);
> - ret = ida_alloc(intel_vsec_dev->ida, GFP_KERNEL);
> + id = ida_alloc(intel_vsec_dev->ida, GFP_KERNEL);
> mutex_unlock(&vsec_ida_lock);
> + if (id < 0) {
> + kfree(intel_vsec_dev->resource);
> + kfree(intel_vsec_dev);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + ret = xa_alloc(&auxdev_array, &intel_vsec_dev->id, intel_vsec_dev,
> + PMT_XA_LIMIT, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (ret < 0) {
> + mutex_lock(&vsec_ida_lock);
> + ida_free(intel_vsec_dev->ida, id);
> + mutex_unlock(&vsec_ida_lock);
Can't order of xa_alloc() and ida_alloc() be reversed such that you don't
need to do this double mutex dance?
--
i.
> +
> kfree(intel_vsec_dev->resource);
> kfree(intel_vsec_dev);
> return ret;
> @@ -147,7 +161,7 @@ int intel_vsec_add_aux(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct device *parent,
> if (!parent)
> parent = &pdev->dev;
>
> - auxdev->id = ret;
> + auxdev->id = id;
> auxdev->name = name;
> auxdev->dev.parent = parent;
> auxdev->dev.release = intel_vsec_dev_release;
> @@ -169,12 +183,6 @@ int intel_vsec_add_aux(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct device *parent,
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> - /* Add auxdev to list */
> - ret = xa_alloc(&auxdev_array, &id, intel_vsec_dev, PMT_XA_LIMIT,
> - GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> -
> return 0;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(intel_vsec_add_aux, INTEL_VSEC);
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec.h b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec.h
> index 0fd042c171ba..0a6201b4a0e9 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec.h
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/vsec.h
> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ struct intel_vsec_device {
> struct ida *ida;
> struct intel_vsec_platform_info *info;
> int num_resources;
> + int id; /* xa */
> void *priv_data;
> size_t priv_data_size;
> };
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists