[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0cf17536-beba-4a8f-836b-553a9e0d1046@moroto.mountain>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:42:24 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: oe-kbuild@...ts.linux.dev, Xingui Yang <yangxingui@...wei.com>,
john.g.garry@...cle.com, yanaijie@...wei.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com
Cc: lkp@...el.com, oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxarm@...wei.com, prime.zeng@...ilicon.com,
chenxiang66@...ilicon.com, kangfenglong@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] scsi: libsas: Allow smp_execute_task() arguments
to be on the stack
Hi Xingui,
kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Xingui-Yang/scsi-libsas-Allow-smp_execute_task-arguments-to-be-on-the-stack/20240307-174215
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mkp/scsi.git for-next
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240307093733.41222-2-yangxingui%40huawei.com
patch subject: [PATCH v3 1/3] scsi: libsas: Allow smp_execute_task() arguments to be on the stack
config: i386-randconfig-141-20240308 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240310/202403102353.jUPi6fOP-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: gcc-12 (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
| Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202403102353.jUPi6fOP-lkp@intel.com/
New smatch warnings:
drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c:148 smp_execute_task() warn: possible memory leak of '_req'
vim +/_req +148 drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 138 static int smp_execute_task(struct domain_device *dev, void *req, int req_size,
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 139 void *resp, int resp_size)
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 140 {
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 141 struct scatterlist req_sg;
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 142 struct scatterlist resp_sg;
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 143 void *_req = kmemdup(req, req_size, GFP_KERNEL);
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 144 void *_resp = alloc_smp_resp(resp_size);
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 145 int ret;
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 146
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 147 if (!_req || !resp)
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 @148 return -ENOMEM;
I haven't looked at the callers so I don't know how likely it is for one
of the allocations to fail and the other succeed... But it seems
possible.
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 149
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 150 sg_init_one(&req_sg, _req, req_size);
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 151 sg_init_one(&resp_sg, _resp, resp_size);
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 152 ret = smp_execute_task_sg(dev, &req_sg, &resp_sg);
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 153 memcpy(resp, _resp, resp_size);
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 154 kfree(_req);
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 155 kfree(_resp);
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 156 return ret;
adfd2325dfc5cf6 Xingui Yang 2024-03-07 157 }
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists