netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] netlink: don't forget to release a rhashtable

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: <20160907042810.GA15590@outlook.office365.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2016 21:28:11 -0700
From:   Andrei Vagin <avagin@...tuozzo.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     <avagin@...nvz.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] netlink: don't forget to release a
 rhashtable_iter structure

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 05:41:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Andrei Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>
> Date: Tue,  6 Sep 2016 11:23:39 -0700
> 
> > This bug was detected by kmemleak:
> > unreferenced object 0xffff8804269cc3c0 (size 64):
> >   comm "criu", pid 1042, jiffies 4294907360 (age 13.713s)
> >   hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> >     a0 32 cc 2c 04 88 ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  .2.,............
> >     00 01 00 00 00 00 ad de 00 02 00 00 00 00 ad de  ................
> >   backtrace:
> >     [<ffffffff8184dffa>] kmemleak_alloc+0x4a/0xa0
> >     [<ffffffff8124720f>] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x10f/0x280
> >     [<ffffffffa02864cc>] __netlink_diag_dump+0x26c/0x290 [netlink_diag]
> > 
> > Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> > Fixes: ad202074320c ("netlink: Use rhashtable walk interface in diag dump")
> > Signed-off-by: Andrei Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>
> 
> Hmmm, why isn't this handled by netlink_diag_dump_done()?
> 
> It seems like the intent is to have the hashtable iter be cached
> across multiple __netlink_diag_dump() calls within a single
> netlink_diag_dump invocation.

I read the code again and I think you are right. I didn't get the
idea at the first time.

Thanks,
Andrei