2011-05-31 21:46:39

by Andre Bartke

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] staging/hv: Fix memory leak of storvsc_dev_add()

stor_device is not freed in storvsc_dev_add()
causing a memory leak in case of an allocation error.

Signed-off-by: Andre Bartke <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c b/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
index 06cd327..92b44f4 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
@@ -414,6 +414,7 @@ int storvsc_dev_add(struct hv_device *device,
device_info->target_id = stor_device->target_id;

cleanup:
+ free_stor_device(stor_device);
return ret;
}

--
1.7.5.2


2011-06-01 12:28:46

by KY Srinivasan

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: RE: [PATCH] staging/hv: Fix memory leak of storvsc_dev_add()



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:devel-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Andre Bartke
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 5:46 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Andre Bartke; Haiyang Zhang; linux-
> [email protected]
> Subject: [PATCH] staging/hv: Fix memory leak of storvsc_dev_add()
>
> stor_device is not freed in storvsc_dev_add()
> causing a memory leak in case of an allocation error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andre Bartke <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c b/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
> index 06cd327..92b44f4 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
> @@ -414,6 +414,7 @@ int storvsc_dev_add(struct hv_device *device,
> device_info->target_id = stor_device->target_id;
>
> cleanup:
> + free_stor_device(stor_device);
> return ret;

Was this patch tested? Even the normal path falls through the cleanup label
and obviously you should not be freeing the stor_device in that case. I have
patches queued up to cleanup some of the unnecessary labels and meaningless
return values that I will be sending soon.

Regards,

K. Y


2011-06-01 16:32:19

by Andre Bartke

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging/hv: Fix memory leak of storvsc_dev_add()

On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 12:28:40 +0000
KY Srinivasan <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:devel-
> > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Andre Bartke
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 5:46 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]; Andre Bartke; Haiyang Zhang; linux-
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: [PATCH] staging/hv: Fix memory leak of storvsc_dev_add()
> >
> > stor_device is not freed in storvsc_dev_add()
> > causing a memory leak in case of an allocation error.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andre Bartke <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c | 1 +
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
> > b/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c index 06cd327..92b44f4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
> > @@ -414,6 +414,7 @@ int storvsc_dev_add(struct hv_device *device,
> > device_info->target_id = stor_device->target_id;
> >
> > cleanup:
> > + free_stor_device(stor_device);
> > return ret;
>
> Was this patch tested? Even the normal path falls through the cleanup
> label and obviously you should not be freeing the stor_device in that
> case. I have patches queued up to cleanup some of the unnecessary
> labels and meaningless return values that I will be sending soon.
>
> Regards,
>
> K. Y
>
>
>

Right, I really messed up there, here is how it was supposed to be

>From 5fe8c601bae555b03257d0e7ea57e42a99c5e634 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andre Bartke <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 18:18:58 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] staging/hv: Fix memory leak of storvsc_dev_add()

stor_device is not freed in storvsc_dev_add()
causing a memory leak in case of an allocation error.

Signed-off-by: Andre Bartke <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c | 12 ++++++++----
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c b/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
index 06cd327..3d77c82 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
@@ -392,10 +392,8 @@ int storvsc_dev_add(struct hv_device *device,

device_info = (struct storvsc_device_info *)additional_info;
stor_device = alloc_stor_device(device);
- if (!stor_device) {
- ret = -1;
- goto cleanup;
- }
+ if (!stor_device)
+ goto err;

/* Save the channel properties to our storvsc channel */

@@ -413,6 +411,12 @@ int storvsc_dev_add(struct hv_device *device,
device_info->path_id = stor_device->path_id;
device_info->target_id = stor_device->target_id;

+ goto cleanup;
+
+err:
+ ret = -1;
+ free_stor_device(stor_device);
+
cleanup:
return ret;
}
--
1.7.5.2

2011-06-01 18:03:08

by KY Srinivasan

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: RE: [PATCH] staging/hv: Fix memory leak of storvsc_dev_add()



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andre Bartke [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:32 PM
> To: KY Srinivasan
> Cc: Andre Bartke; [email protected]; [email protected]; Haiyang Zhang;
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging/hv: Fix memory leak of storvsc_dev_add()
>
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 12:28:40 +0000
> KY Srinivasan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected] [mailto:devel-
> > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Andre Bartke
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 5:46 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Cc: [email protected]; Andre Bartke; Haiyang Zhang; linux-
> > > [email protected]
> > > Subject: [PATCH] staging/hv: Fix memory leak of storvsc_dev_add()
> > >
> > > stor_device is not freed in storvsc_dev_add()
> > > causing a memory leak in case of an allocation error.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andre Bartke <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c | 1 +
> > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
> > > b/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c index 06cd327..92b44f4 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
> > > @@ -414,6 +414,7 @@ int storvsc_dev_add(struct hv_device *device,
> > > device_info->target_id = stor_device->target_id;
> > >
> > > cleanup:
> > > + free_stor_device(stor_device);
> > > return ret;
> >
> > Was this patch tested? Even the normal path falls through the cleanup
> > label and obviously you should not be freeing the stor_device in that
> > case. I have patches queued up to cleanup some of the unnecessary
> > labels and meaningless return values that I will be sending soon.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > K. Y
> >
> >
> >
>
> Right, I really messed up there, here is how it was supposed to be
>
> From 5fe8c601bae555b03257d0e7ea57e42a99c5e634 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Andre Bartke <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 18:18:58 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] staging/hv: Fix memory leak of storvsc_dev_add()
>
> stor_device is not freed in storvsc_dev_add()
> causing a memory leak in case of an allocation error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andre Bartke <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c | 12 ++++++++----
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c b/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
> index 06cd327..3d77c82 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c
> @@ -392,10 +392,8 @@ int storvsc_dev_add(struct hv_device *device,
>
> device_info = (struct storvsc_device_info *)additional_info;
> stor_device = alloc_stor_device(device);
> - if (!stor_device) {
> - ret = -1;
> - goto cleanup;
> - }
> + if (!stor_device)
> + goto err;
>
> /* Save the channel properties to our storvsc channel */
>
> @@ -413,6 +411,12 @@ int storvsc_dev_add(struct hv_device *device,
> device_info->path_id = stor_device->path_id;
> device_info->target_id = stor_device->target_id;
>
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> +err:
> + ret = -1;
> + free_stor_device(stor_device);
> +
> cleanup:
> return ret;
> }
> --
> 1.7.5.2
>
This could be cleaned up much better; we don't need to additional labels. As I said,
earlier, I have patches queued up for this and a whole lot more. I will add your name to
the patch that fixes this issue.

Regards,

K. Y