Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 28 Apr 2019 11:19:57 +1000
From:   "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, cl@linux.com,
        tycho@tycho.ws, willy@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: memleak around kobject_init_and_add()
Message-ID: <20190428011957.GA18843@eros.localdomain>
References: <20190427081330.GA26788@eros.localdomain>
 <20190427192809.GA8454@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190427192809.GA8454@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 09:28:09PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 06:13:30PM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > (Note at bottom on reasons for 'To' list 'Cc' list)
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > kobject_init_and_add() seems to be routinely misused.  A failed call to this
> > function requires a call to kobject_put() otherwise we leak memory.
> > 
> > Examples memleaks can be seen in:
> > 
> > 	mm/slub.c
> > 	fs/btrfs/sysfs.c
> > 	fs/xfs/xfs_sysfs.h: xfs_sysfs_init()
> > 
> >  Question: Do we fix the misuse or fix the API?
> 
> Fix the misuse.

Following on from this.  It seems we often also forget to call
kobject_uevent() after calls to kobject_init_and_add().  Before I make a
goose of myself patching the whole tree is there ever any reason why we
would _not_ want to call kobject_uevent() after successfully calling
kobject_add() (or kobject_init_and_add())?

Cheers,
Tobin.