linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v2 2/2] ax25: fix potential reference counting leak in ax25_addr

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 09:30:33 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>, linux-hams@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jörg Reuter
 <jreuter@...na.de>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
 Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars@...bit.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 2/2] ax25: fix potential reference counting leak in
 ax25_addr_ax25dev

How do you think about to append parentheses to the function name
in the summary phrase?

> The reference counting of ax25_dev potentially increase more
> than once in ax25_addr_ax25dev(), which will cause memory leak.
>
> In order to fix the above issue, only increase the reference
> counting of ax25_dev once, when the res is not null.

Would you find the following change description a bit nicer?

   The reference counter of the object “ax25_dev” can be increased multiple times
   in ax25_addr_ax25dev(). This will cause a memory leak so far.

   Thus move a needed function call behind a for loop
   and increase the reference counter only when the local variable “res”
   is not a null pointer.

…
> +++ b/net/ax25/ax25_dev.c
> @@ -37,8 +37,9 @@ ax25_dev *ax25_addr_ax25dev(ax25_address *addr)
…

Would you like to omit curly brackets in the affected function implementation?

Regards,
Markus