lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] powercap: fix possible name leak while device_register() fails
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 3:16 AM Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2022/11/24 3:25, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 08:00:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 10:42 AM Yang Yingliang
> >> <yangyingliang@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>> If device_register() returns error, the name allocated by
> Sorry,
> I didn't describe clearly here, it's not only after device_register()
> failure, but also in the error path before register, the name is not
> freed, see description below.

So you would need to update the changelog at least. But see below.

> >>> dev_set_name() need be freed. In technical, we should call
> >>> put_device() to give up the reference and free the name in
> >>> driver core, but in some cases the device is not intizalized,
> >>> put_device() can not be called, so don't complicate the code,
> >>> just call kfree_const() to free name in the error path.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 75d2364ea0ca ("PowerCap: Add class driver")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/powercap/powercap_sys.c | 2 ++
> >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/powercap_sys.c b/drivers/powercap/powercap_sys.c
> >>> index f0654a932b37..11e742dc83b9 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/powercap/powercap_sys.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/powercap/powercap_sys.c
> >>> @@ -572,6 +572,7 @@ struct powercap_zone *powercap_register_zone(
> >>> err_name_alloc:
> >>> idr_remove(power_zone->parent_idr, power_zone->id);
> >>> err_idr_alloc:
> >>> + kfree_const(dev_name(&power_zone->dev));
> >>> if (power_zone->allocated)
> >>> kfree(power_zone);
> >>> mutex_unlock(&control_type->lock);
> >>> @@ -622,6 +623,7 @@ struct powercap_control_type *powercap_register_control_type(
> >>> dev_set_name(&control_type->dev, "%s", name);
> >>> result = device_register(&control_type->dev);
> >>> if (result) {
> >>> + kfree_const(dev_name(&control_type->dev));
> >> Why is it necessary to free a device name explicitly after a failing
> >> device_register()?
> powercap_register_zone()
> {
> ...
> dev_set_name() // allocate name
> ...
> if (!power_zone->constraints)
> goto err_const_alloc; //the name is leaked in this path
> ...
> if (!power_zone->zone_dev_attrs)
> goto err_attr_alloc; //the name is leaked in this path
> ...
> if (result)
> goto err_dev_ret; //the name is leaked in this path
>
> result = device_register(&power_zone->dev);
> if (result)
> goto err_dev_ret;//put_device() is not called, the name is
> leaked in this path
> ...
> err_dev_ret:
> kfree(power_zone->zone_dev_attrs);
> err_attr_alloc:
> kfree(power_zone->constraints);
> err_const_alloc:
> kfree(power_zone->name);
> err_name_alloc:
> idr_remove(power_zone->parent_idr, power_zone->id);
> err_idr_alloc:
> if (power_zone->allocated)
> kfree(power_zone);
> }

So can't the dev_set_name() be reordered closer to device_register(),
so it is not necessary to worry about freeing the name?

> >>
> >> If it is really necessary, then there is a problem in
> >> device_register() itself AFAICS, because it uses dev_set_name() at
> >> least in the dev->init_name present case.
> When the dev_set_name() called in device_register(), if register fails, the
> name is freed in its error path. But in this case, dev_set_name() is called
> outside the register, it needs call put_device() to free the name.

In any case, device_register() needs to take care of it anyway,
because it uses dev_set_name() itself in the dev->init_name case,
doesn't it?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-25 19:46    [W:0.935 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site