Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-151408-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240418210236.194190-1-wander@redhat.com> <20240418210236.194190-3-wander@redhat.com>
 <CABVgOSncx1eS_8EWsNkoDOj+TaNsaW8MpjG8XaFY2Q8JXo+oqQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABVgOSncx1eS_8EWsNkoDOj+TaNsaW8MpjG8XaFY2Q8JXo+oqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 09:30:06 -0300
Message-ID: <CAAq0SUmMdTb5C-SCSD5WPPyj5B1iB6dD5QWuDTsXPnJktFr36g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] kunit: avoid memory leak on device register error
To: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>, Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>, 
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>, Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>, 
	"open list:KERNEL UNIT TESTING FRAMEWORK (KUnit)" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:KERNEL UNIT TESTING FRAMEWORK (KUnit)" <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 1:59=E2=80=AFAM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wro=
te:
>
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 at 05:02, Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com> wr=
ote:
> >
> > If the device register fails, free the allocated memory before
> > returning.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>
> > Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices")
> > ---
>
> Thanks.
>
> I'm not sure this is correct, though... Shouldn't put_device() free this =
for us?
>
> The documentation for device_register() says to never free a device
> after device_register() has been called, even if it fails:
> https://docs.kernel.org/driver-api/infrastructure.html#c.device_register
>
> Or am I missing something?
>

I am not freeing the device object passed to device_register, but its
parent structure.

As a side note, the behavior of device_register() seems
counterintuitive and error-prone, IMO. If the function returns an
error, it should ensure it leaks no resource and shouldn't require the
caller to do any cleanup.

> Cheers,
> -- David
>
>
> >  lib/kunit/device.c | 11 ++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/device.c b/lib/kunit/device.c
> > index 25c81ed465fb..bc2e2032e505 100644
> > --- a/lib/kunit/device.c
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/device.c
> > @@ -119,10 +119,8 @@ static struct kunit_device *kunit_device_register_=
internal(struct kunit *test,
> >         kunit_dev->owner =3D test;
> >
> >         err =3D dev_set_name(&kunit_dev->dev, "%s.%s", test->name, name=
);
> > -       if (err) {
> > -               kfree(kunit_dev);
> > -               return ERR_PTR(err);
> > -       }
> > +       if (err)
> > +               goto error;
> >
> >         kunit_dev->dev.release =3D kunit_device_release;
> >         kunit_dev->dev.bus =3D &kunit_bus_type;
> > @@ -131,7 +129,7 @@ static struct kunit_device *kunit_device_register_i=
nternal(struct kunit *test,
> >         err =3D device_register(&kunit_dev->dev);
> >         if (err) {
> >                 put_device(&kunit_dev->dev);
> > -               return ERR_PTR(err);
> > +               goto error;
> >         }
> >
> >         kunit_dev->dev.dma_mask =3D &kunit_dev->dev.coherent_dma_mask;
> > @@ -140,6 +138,9 @@ static struct kunit_device *kunit_device_register_i=
nternal(struct kunit *test,
> >         kunit_add_action(test, device_unregister_wrapper, &kunit_dev->d=
ev);
> >
> >         return kunit_dev;
> > +error:
> > +       kfree(kunit_dev);
> > +       return ERR_PTR(err);
> >  }
> >
> >  /*
> > --
> > 2.44.0
> >