IronPort-SDR: 6olvhsWVebrX5wpIffcD8M8f3K4UyaNKNURQSk0WJIev40/27axL6tCye/gvb1URyplDTb5STG
 V67Y65dtE70J1mh/LPxZW4KxlMJnqeSSBqccLBozqcKScd6QEHy4uJbrlSzH5qUNm3e1WlhGfT
 jvkU4KbxmNNDhehwo/UAbOiYcuB2irorMKZkez0H3xHByn4ow3zDqfxMREfToXU7q7Y1Q3eH7s
 DHvwSIO5aCE+RoqXHpNpgjpG9YWMPllu3JIZzuQeKchVuxBqBTQ9KvrIyfk0L4z/m/UhyeVzPI
 8yo=
IronPort-SDR: +4ZnBU/pCXGHBi5HojfQJXmteh2QWKgQaKe23lw8lHoRtcqIsQptUGo9TLcDCEQd1kYtJWwjzQ
 GxHbey3Q4Brj3Aho0YMVEgR/tUZKwOgsgzE0XuTcF4VEnFDPQCARrwb+mg3Fx2cXIGLK4q0c4A
 /UYABpu5JnILWFPaP9UZBM9MYmDZxYgzKIMMMgoUxC0VMABmE6dUvOX+luBnF3fteRRZSm7lFh
 8qKHpE/ujxmBtbsXCz5blKojilE9NgNPmboc9SHi3V5YCv84imXBeyPVbR2r7PiXGpkA/bN1ae
 /X0=
WDCIronportException: Internal
Message-ID: <cf8c7b34-3c5d-2b9e-b410-d83f4af7274a@opensource.wdc.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 08:17:12 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pata_parport: fix possible memory leak
To:     Ondrej Zary <linux@zary.sk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <202303112239.21234.linux@zary.sk>
 <20230311214447.7359-1-linux@zary.sk>
 <8b0eb4d0-ca10-35a5-a74c-fd0f7d11713c@opensource.wdc.com>
 <202303122224.29035.linux@zary.sk>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>
Organization: Western Digital Research
In-Reply-To: <202303122224.29035.linux@zary.sk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/13/23 06:24, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> On Sunday 12 March 2023 01:56:25 Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 3/12/23 06:44, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>>> When ida_alloc() fails, "pi" is not freed although the misleading
>>> comment says otherwise.
>>> Move the ida_alloc() call up so we really don't have to free it.
>>
>> Certainly you meant: "so we really do free it in case of error.", no ?
> 
> I meant "so we don't have to free pi in case of ida_alloc failure".

That is better. Please rephrase the commit message to this.

>>>  	/* set up pi->dev before pi_probe_unit() so it can use dev_printk() */
>>>  	pi->dev.parent = &pata_parport_bus;
>>>  	pi->dev.bus = &pata_parport_bus_type;
>>>  	pi->dev.driver = &pr->driver;
>>>  	pi->dev.release = pata_parport_dev_release;
>>> -	id = ida_alloc(&pata_parport_bus_dev_ids, GFP_KERNEL);
>>> -	if (id < 0)
>>> -		return NULL; /* pata_parport_dev_release will do kfree(pi) */
>>>  	pi->dev.id = id;
>>>  	dev_set_name(&pi->dev, "pata_parport.%u", pi->dev.id);
>>>  	if (device_register(&pi->dev)) {
>>> @@ -571,7 +572,7 @@ static struct pi_adapter *pi_init_one(struct parport *parport,
>>>  out_unreg_dev:
>>>  	device_unregister(&pi->dev);
>>
>> Same comment as Sergey: isn't this going to do the ida free ? So shouldn't you
>> return here ?
> 
> No. device_unregister() calls pata_parport_dev_release() which does only kfree(pi), not ida_free(). But it probably should do ida_free() too.

Yes, it should, otherwise you are leaking the ida with the normal (no errors)
case. Care to send a fix for that too ?


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research