linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf:fix a resource leak in main()

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]

Message-ID: <ZpB-dswNvYJiCRR4@mini-arch>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:53:10 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
To: Ma Ke <make24@...as.ac.cn>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
	martin.lau@...ux.dev, eddyz87@...il.com, song@...nel.org,
	yonghong.song@...ux.dev, john.fastabend@...il.com,
	kpsingh@...nel.org, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
	mykolal@...com, shuah@...nel.org, sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf:fix a resource leak in main()

On 07/11, Ma Ke wrote:
> The requested resources should be closed before return in main(), otherwise
>  resource leak will occur. Add a check of cg_fd before close().
> 
> Fixes: 435f90a338ae ("selftests/bpf: add a test case for sock_ops perf-event notification")
> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make24@...as.ac.cn>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_tcpnotify_user.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_tcpnotify_user.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_tcpnotify_user.c
> index 595194453ff8..f81c60db586e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_tcpnotify_user.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_tcpnotify_user.c
> @@ -161,7 +161,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  	error = 0;
>  err:
>  	bpf_prog_detach(cg_fd, BPF_CGROUP_SOCK_OPS);
> -	close(cg_fd);

Worst case that happens here is that we call close(-1) which returns
EBADFS or something similar. Don't think there is any problem. This
applies to the rest of that patches that add an extra 'if' check.