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, 10 Sep 2021 14:45:07 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To:     Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Cc:     linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp,
        axboe@kernel.dk, martin.petersen@oracle.com, hch@lst.de,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: bsg: Fix device unregistration
Message-ID: <YTtTU4+DZEb4WRkR@hovoldconsulting.com>
References: <20210909034608.1435-1-yuzenghui@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210909034608.1435-1-yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 11:46:08AM +0800, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> We use device_initialize() to take refcount for the device but forget to
> put_device() on device teardown, which ends up leaking private data of the
> driver core, dev_name(), etc. This is reported by kmemleak at boot time if
> we compile kernel with DEBUG_TEST_DRIVER_REMOVE.
> 
> Note that adding the missing put_device() is _not_ sufficient to fix device
> unregistration. As we don't provide the .release() method for device, which
> turned out to be typically wrong and will be complained loudly by the
> driver core.
> 
> Fix both of them.
> 
> Fixes: ead09dd3aed5 ("scsi: bsg: Simplify device registration")
> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
> ---
>  block/bsg.c | 13 +++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 
> +static void bsg_device_release(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct bsg_device *bd = container_of(dev, struct bsg_device, device);
> +
> +	ida_simple_remove(&bsg_minor_ida, MINOR(bd->device.devt));
> +	kfree(bd);
> +}

> @@ -198,6 +205,7 @@ struct bsg_device *bsg_register_queue(struct request_queue *q,
>  	bd->device.devt = MKDEV(bsg_major, ret);
>  	bd->device.class = bsg_class;
>  	bd->device.parent = parent;
> +	bd->device.release = bsg_device_release;
>  	dev_set_name(&bd->device, "%s", name);
>  	device_initialize(&bd->device);
>  
> @@ -218,6 +226,7 @@ struct bsg_device *bsg_register_queue(struct request_queue *q,
>  out_device_del:
>  	cdev_device_del(&bd->cdev, &bd->device);
>  out_ida_remove:
> +	put_device(&bd->device);
>  	ida_simple_remove(&bsg_minor_ida, MINOR(bd->device.devt));
>  out_kfree:
>  	kfree(bd);

Ehh, what about the blatant use-after-free and double-free you just
added here?

Martin, can this still be dropped from the scsi tree or does it need to
be fixed incrementally?

Johan