Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:24:49 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>, Shailabh Nagar <nagar@watson.ibm.com>,
       Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>, Jay Lan <jlan@sgi.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] taskstats: fix? sk_buff leak
Message-ID: <20061029132449.GA1142@oleg>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1096
Lines: 34

Compile tested only, and I know nothing about net/. Needs an ack from
maintainer.

'return genlmsg_cancel()' in taskstats_user_cmd/taskstats_exit_send looks
wrong to me. Unless we pass 'rep_skb' to the netlink layer we own sk_buff,
yes? This means we should always do kfree_skb() on failure.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>

--- STATS/kernel/taskstats.c~1_skb	2006-10-29 15:12:51.000000000 +0300
+++ STATS/kernel/taskstats.c	2006-10-29 16:16:05.000000000 +0300
@@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ static int taskstats_user_cmd(struct sk_
 	return send_reply(rep_skb, info->snd_pid);
 
 nla_put_failure:
-	return genlmsg_cancel(rep_skb, reply);
+	genlmsg_cancel(rep_skb, reply);
 err:
 	nlmsg_free(rep_skb);
 	return rc;
@@ -507,7 +507,6 @@ send:
 
 nla_put_failure:
 	genlmsg_cancel(rep_skb, reply);
-	goto ret;
 err_skb:
 	nlmsg_free(rep_skb);
 ret:

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/