lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subjectkobject_init_and_add is easy to misuse
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 07:50:33PM +0800, Wang Hai wrote:
> syzkaller reports for memory leak when kobject_init_and_add()
> returns an error in the function sysfs_slab_add() [1]
>
> When this happened, the function kobject_put() is not called for the
> corresponding kobject, which potentially leads to memory leak.
>
> This patch fixes the issue by calling kobject_put() even if
> kobject_init_and_add() fails.

I think this speaks to a deeper problem with kobject_init_and_add()
-- the need to call kobject_put() if it fails is not readily apparent
to most users. This same bug appears in the first three users of
kobject_init_and_add() that I checked --
arch/ia64/kernel/topology.c
drivers/firmware/dmi-sysfs.c
drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c
drivers/scsi/iscsi_boot_sysfs.c

Some do get it right --
arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_memory.c
drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/sysfs.c

I'd argue that the current behaviour is wrong, that kobject_init_and_add()
should call kobject_put() if the add fails. This would need a tree-wide
audit. But somebody needs to do that anyway because based on my random
sampling, half of the users currently get it wrong.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-02 14:11    [W:0.346 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site