linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] perf probe: Fix libdw memory leak

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: <ZvMHfB1f_GbtRqSp@google.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 11:39:56 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Steinar H. Gunderson" <sesse@...gle.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
	Hemant Kumar <hemant@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Yang Jihong <yangjihong@...edance.com>, leo.yan@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] perf probe: Fix libdw memory leak

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 10:17:08AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24/09/2024 1:37 am, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > Add missing dwarf_cfi_end to free memory associated with probe_finder
> > cfi_eh or cfi_dbg. This addresses leak sanitizer issues seen in:
> > tools/perf/tests/shell/test_uprobe_from_different_cu.sh
> > 
> > Fixes: 270bde1e76f4 ("perf probe: Search both .eh_frame and .debug_frame sections for probe location")
> > Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >   tools/perf/util/probe-finder.c | 5 +++++
> >   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/probe-finder.c b/tools/perf/util/probe-finder.c
> > index 630e16c54ed5..78f34fa0c391 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/probe-finder.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/probe-finder.c
> > @@ -1379,6 +1379,11 @@ int debuginfo__find_trace_events(struct debuginfo *dbg,
> >   	if (ret >= 0 && tf.pf.skip_empty_arg)
> >   		ret = fill_empty_trace_arg(pev, tf.tevs, tf.ntevs);
> > +#if _ELFUTILS_PREREQ(0, 142)
> > +	dwarf_cfi_end(tf.pf.cfi_eh);
> > +	dwarf_cfi_end(tf.pf.cfi_dbg);
> > +#endif
> > +
> 
> I noticed that c06547d converted an _ELFUTILS_PREREQ(0, 142) into
> HAVE_DWARF_CFI_SUPPORT. But there is still a mixture of both in the code
> (unrelated to this patch). The commit message doesn't say why it is better,
> just that it could be changed, so I'm not sure which one is right.

I think HAVE_DWARF_CFI_SUPPORT is better since it reveals the intention
clearly.

Thanks,
Namhyung