When videobuf_waiton() fails, we should execute clean
functions to prevent memleak. It's the same when
__videobuf_copy_to_user() fails.
Fixes: 7a7d9a89d0307 ("V4L/DVB (6251): Replace video-buf to a more generic approach")
Signed-off-by: Dinghao Liu <[email protected]>
---
drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c | 12 ++++++++++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
index 606a271bdd2d..0709b75d11cd 100644
--- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
+++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
@@ -924,8 +924,12 @@ ssize_t videobuf_read_one(struct videobuf_queue *q,
/* wait until capture is done */
retval = videobuf_waiton(q, q->read_buf, nonblocking, 1);
- if (0 != retval)
+ if (retval != 0) {
+ q->ops->buf_release(q, q->read_buf);
+ kfree(q->read_buf);
+ q->read_buf = NULL;
goto done;
+ }
CALL(q, sync, q, q->read_buf);
@@ -940,8 +944,12 @@ ssize_t videobuf_read_one(struct videobuf_queue *q,
/* Copy to userspace */
retval = __videobuf_copy_to_user(q, q->read_buf, data, count, nonblocking);
- if (retval < 0)
+ if (retval < 0) {
+ q->ops->buf_release(q, q->read_buf);
+ kfree(q->read_buf);
+ q->read_buf = NULL;
goto done;
+ }
q->read_off += retval;
if (q->read_off == q->read_buf->size) {
--
2.17.1
On 05/01/2021 08:59, Dinghao Liu wrote:
> When videobuf_waiton() fails, we should execute clean
> functions to prevent memleak. It's the same when
> __videobuf_copy_to_user() fails.
>
> Fixes: 7a7d9a89d0307 ("V4L/DVB (6251): Replace video-buf to a more generic approach")
> Signed-off-by: Dinghao Liu <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
> index 606a271bdd2d..0709b75d11cd 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
> @@ -924,8 +924,12 @@ ssize_t videobuf_read_one(struct videobuf_queue *q,
>
> /* wait until capture is done */
> retval = videobuf_waiton(q, q->read_buf, nonblocking, 1);
> - if (0 != retval)
> + if (retval != 0) {
> + q->ops->buf_release(q, q->read_buf);
> + kfree(q->read_buf);
> + q->read_buf = NULL;
> goto done;
> + }
I'm fairly certain that this is wrong: if waiton returns an error, then
that means that the wait is either interrupted or that we are in non-blocking
mode and no buffer has arrived yet. In that case you just go to done since
there is nothing to clean up.
>
> CALL(q, sync, q, q->read_buf);
>
> @@ -940,8 +944,12 @@ ssize_t videobuf_read_one(struct videobuf_queue *q,
>
> /* Copy to userspace */
> retval = __videobuf_copy_to_user(q, q->read_buf, data, count, nonblocking);
> - if (retval < 0)
> + if (retval < 0) {
> + q->ops->buf_release(q, q->read_buf);
> + kfree(q->read_buf);
> + q->read_buf = NULL;
> goto done;
I'm not sure about this either: if userspace gave a crappy pointer and this
copy_to_user fails, then that doesn't mean you should release the buffer.
The next read() might have a valid pointer or, more likely, the application
exits or crashes and everything is cleaned up when the filehandle is closed.
> + }
>
> q->read_off += retval;
> if (q->read_off == q->read_buf->size) {
>
Do you have actual proof that this is a memleak? I don't want to mess around
with the old videobuf unless you can show me that there is a real bug.
Regards,
Hans
> On 05/01/2021 08:59, Dinghao Liu wrote:
> > When videobuf_waiton() fails, we should execute clean
> > functions to prevent memleak. It's the same when
> > __videobuf_copy_to_user() fails.
> >
> > Fixes: 7a7d9a89d0307 ("V4L/DVB (6251): Replace video-buf to a more generic approach")
> > Signed-off-by: Dinghao Liu <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
> > index 606a271bdd2d..0709b75d11cd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
> > @@ -924,8 +924,12 @@ ssize_t videobuf_read_one(struct videobuf_queue *q,
> >
> > /* wait until capture is done */
> > retval = videobuf_waiton(q, q->read_buf, nonblocking, 1);
> > - if (0 != retval)
> > + if (retval != 0) {
> > + q->ops->buf_release(q, q->read_buf);
> > + kfree(q->read_buf);
> > + q->read_buf = NULL;
> > goto done;
> > + }
>
> I'm fairly certain that this is wrong: if waiton returns an error, then
> that means that the wait is either interrupted or that we are in non-blocking
> mode and no buffer has arrived yet. In that case you just go to done since
> there is nothing to clean up.
>
I found there was a similar error handling in videobuf_read_zerocopy(), where
q->read_buf was freed on failure of videobuf_waiton(), thus I reported this as
a memleak. Do you think the error handling in videobuf_read_zerocopy() is right?
> >
> > CALL(q, sync, q, q->read_buf);
> >
> > @@ -940,8 +944,12 @@ ssize_t videobuf_read_one(struct videobuf_queue *q,
> >
> > /* Copy to userspace */
> > retval = __videobuf_copy_to_user(q, q->read_buf, data, count, nonblocking);
> > - if (retval < 0)
> > + if (retval < 0) {
> > + q->ops->buf_release(q, q->read_buf);
> > + kfree(q->read_buf);
> > + q->read_buf = NULL;
> > goto done;
>
> I'm not sure about this either: if userspace gave a crappy pointer and this
> copy_to_user fails, then that doesn't mean you should release the buffer.
> The next read() might have a valid pointer or, more likely, the application
> exits or crashes and everything is cleaned up when the filehandle is closed.
>
You are right. Let's keep this part as it was for security.
Regards,
Dinghao