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:   Thu, 2 May 2019 07:56:16 +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: <20190501215616.GD18827@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.
> 
> > $ git grep kobject_init_and_add | wc -l
> > 117
> > 
> > Either way, we will have to go through all 117 call sites and check them.
> 
> Yes.  Same for other functions like device_add(), that is the "pattern"
> those users must follow.
> 
> > I
> > don't mind fixing them all but I don't want to do it twice because I chose the
> > wrong option.  Reaching out to those more experienced for a suggestion please.
> > 
> > Fix the API
> > -----------
> > 
> > Typically init functions do not require cleanup if they fail, this argument
> > leads to this patch
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/kobject.c b/lib/kobject.c
> > index aa89edcd2b63..62328054bbd0 100644
> > --- a/lib/kobject.c
> > +++ b/lib/kobject.c
> > @@ -453,6 +453,9 @@ int kobject_init_and_add(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_type *ktype,
> >  	retval = kobject_add_varg(kobj, parent, fmt, args);
> >  	va_end(args);
> >  
> > +	if (retval)
> > +		kobject_put(kobj);
> > +
> >  	return retval;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kobject_init_and_add);
> 
> I would _love_ to do this, but realize what a kobject really is.
> 
> It's just a "base object" that is embedded inside of some other object.
> The kobject core has no idea what is going on outside of itself.  If the
> kobject_init_and_add() function fails, it can NOT drop the last
> reference on itself, as that would cause the memory owned by the _WHOLE_
> structure the kobject is embedded in, to be freed.
> 
> And the kobject core can not "know" that something else needed to be
> done _before_ that memory could be freed.  What if the larger structure
> needs to have some other destructor called on it first?  What if
> some other api initialization needs to be torn down.
> 
> As an example, consider this code:
> 
> struct foo {
> 	struct kobject kobj;
> 	struct baz *baz;
> };
> 
> void foo_release(struct kobject *kobj)
> {
> 	struct foo *foo = container_of(kobj, struct foo, kobj);
> 	kfree(foo);
> }
> 
> struct kobj_type foo_ktype = {
> 	.release = foo_release,
> };
> 
> struct foo *foo_create(struct foo *parent, char *name)
> {
> 	struct *foo;
> 
> 	foo = kzalloc(sizeof(*foo), GFP_KERNEL);
> 	if (!foo)
> 		return NULL;
> 
> 	foo->baz = baz_create(name);
> 	if (!foo->baz)
> 		return NULL;
> 
> 	ret = kobject_init_and_add(&foo->kobj, foo_ktype, &parent->kobj, "foo-%s", name);
> 	if (ret) {
> 		baz_destroy(foo->baz);
> 		kobject_put(&foo->kobj);
> 		return NULL;
> 	}
> 
> 	return foo;
> }
> 
> void foo_destroy(struct foo *foo)
> {
> 	baz_destroy(foo->baz);
> 	kobject_del(&foo->kobj);
	kojbect_put(&foo->kobj);
> }

Does this need this extra call to kobject_put()?  Then foo_create()
leaves foo with a refcount of 1 and foo_destroy drops that refcount.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this stuff.

thanks
Tobin.


Leaving below for reference.

> Now if kobject_init_and_add() had failed, and called kobject_put() right
> away, that would have freed the larger "struct foo", but not cleaned up
> the reference to the baz pointer.
> 
> Yes, you can move all of the other destruction logic into the release
> function, to then get rid of baz, but that really doesn't work in the
> real world as there are times you want to drop that when you "know" you
> can drop it, not when the last reference goes away as those are
> different lifecycles.
> 
> Same thing goes for 'struct device'.  It too is a kobject, so think
> about if the driver core's call to initialize the kobject failed, would
> it be ok at that exact moment in time to free everything?
> 
> Look at the "joy" that is device_add().  If kobject_add() fails, we have
> to clean up the glue directory that we had created, _before_ we can then
> call put_device().  Then stack another layer on top of that, look at
> usb_new_device().  If the call to device_add() fails, it needs to do
> some housekeeping before it can drop the last reference to the device to
> free the memory up.