linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] lib: xarray: free unused spare node in xas_create

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <496fe218-dca3-477b-89f4-0f71adb155f6@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 09:12:42 +0800
From: Jinjiang Tu <tujinjiang@...wei.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Shardul B
	<shardul.b@...ricsoftware.com>
CC: <willy@...radead.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<dev.jain@....com>, <david@...nel.org>, <janak@...ricsoftware.com>,
	<shardulsb08@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] lib: xarray: free unused spare node in
 xas_create_range()


在 2026/1/27 4:04, Andrew Morton 写道:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 11:16:08 +0530 Shardul B <shardul.b@...ricsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Matthew, Andrew,
>>
>>
>> Gently pinging this patch. I’ve checked the latest linux-next (next-20260123) and the akpm-unstable branches, and it doesn't appear to have been picked up yet.
>>
>>
>> The patch has a Reviewed-by from David Hildenbrand and fixes a memory leak in the XArray library identified by syzbot.
>>
>>
>> If there are no further concerns, could you please let me know if this is queued for the next cycle?
> There are comments from Jinjiang Tu and Dev Jain which remain
> unaddressed, please.

Hi, Andrew

The issue is another problem, independent ofShardul's patch.

I have posted a patch to solve it.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20260121062243.1893129-1-tujinjiang@huawei.com

> The leak is a rare and this is a minor problem, I believe?
>
> I'll queue the patch for some exposure and testing but it appears that
> some additional consideration is needed before it should be progressed
> further.
>