Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 4 Sep 2020 09:37:53 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc:     Rustam Kovhaev <rkovhaev@gmail.com>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: fix memory leak in kvm_io_bus_unregister_dev()
Message-ID: <20200904143753.GE31464@embeddedor>
References: <20200902225718.675314-1-rkovhaev@gmail.com>
 <c5990c86-ab01-d748-5505-375f50a4ed7d@embeddedor.com>
 <20200903172215.GA870347@thinkpad>
 <87ft7xoiig.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87ft7xoiig.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 02:04:23PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Rustam Kovhaev <rkovhaev@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 06:34:11PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> On 9/2/20 17:57, Rustam Kovhaev wrote:
> >> > when kmalloc() fails in kvm_io_bus_unregister_dev(), before removing
> >> > the bus, we should iterate over all other devices linked to it and call
> >> > kvm_iodevice_destructor() for them
> >> > 
> >> > Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+f196caa45793d6374707@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> >> > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=f196caa45793d6374707
> >> > Signed-off-by: Rustam Kovhaev <rkovhaev@gmail.com>
> >> > Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
> >> 
> >> I think it's worthwhile to add a Fixes tag for this, too.
> >> 
> >> Please, see more comments below...
[..]
> >
> > hi Gustavo, thank you for the review, i'll send the new patch.
> > Vitaly, i think i will need to drop your "Reviewed-by", because there is
> > going to be a bit more changes
> >
> 
> Personally, I'd prefer to make struct_size()/flex_array_size() a
> separate preparatory patch so the real fix is small but I don't have a
> strong opinion. I'll take look at v3 so feel free to drop R-b if you
> decide to make a combined patch and feel free to keep it if you make the
> preparatory changes separate :-)
> 

I agree. A two-patch series is much better in this case.

Rustam - please add a Fixes tag to the first patch and see if it can be
applied to -stable. If so, you should Cc stable@vger.kernel.org, too.

Thanks
--
Gustavo