netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2 v2 1/2] lib/fs: fix memory leak in get_task

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:   Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:57:25 -0800
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Andrea Claudi <aclaudi@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        markzhang@...dia.com, leonro@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 v2 1/2] lib/fs: fix memory leak in
 get_task_name()

On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 19:21:41 +0100
Andrea Claudi <aclaudi@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 10:58:37AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> > On 3/2/22 5:28 AM, Andrea Claudi wrote:  
> > > diff --git a/include/utils.h b/include/utils.h
> > > index b6c468e9..81294488 100644
> > > --- a/include/utils.h
> > > +++ b/include/utils.h
> > > @@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ char *find_cgroup2_mount(bool do_mount);
> > >  __u64 get_cgroup2_id(const char *path);
> > >  char *get_cgroup2_path(__u64 id, bool full);
> > >  int get_command_name(const char *pid, char *comm, size_t len);
> > > -char *get_task_name(pid_t pid);
> > > +int get_task_name(pid_t pid, char *name);
> > >    
> > 
> > changing to an API with an assumed length is not better than the current
> > situation. Why not just fixup the callers as needed to free the allocation?
> >  
> 
> I actually did that on v1. After Stephen's comment about asprintf(), I
> got the idea to make get_task_name() similar to get_command_name() and
> a bit more "user-friendly", so that callers do not need a free().
> 
> If you think this is not ideal, I can post a v3 with the necessary fixes
> to the callers.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andrea
> 

My comment was purely a suggestion not a requirement.
I have just had issues with complaints from compiler about code not
checking return value from asprintf, so tend to avoid it.