Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210723050919.1910964-1-mudongliangabcd@gmail.com>
 <d2b0f847dbf6b6d1e585ef8de1d9d367f8d9fd3b.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <CAD-N9QWDNvo_3bdB=8edyYWvEV=b-66Tx-P6_7JGgrSYshDh0A@mail.gmail.com> <11ba299b812212a07fe3631b7be0e8b8fd5fb569.camel@sipsolutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <11ba299b812212a07fe3631b7be0e8b8fd5fb569.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From:   Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:30:46 +0800
Message-ID: <CAD-N9QWRNyZnnDQ3XTQ_SAWNEgiMCJV+5Z69eHtRVcxYtXcM+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: free the object allocated in wiphy_apply_custom_regulatory
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com>,
        Ilan Peer <ilan.peer@intel.com>,
        syzbot+1638e7c770eef6b6c0d0@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        "open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 5:18 PM Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2021-07-23 at 17:13 +0800, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 4:37 PM Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2021-07-23 at 13:09 +0800, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> > > > The commit beee24695157 ("cfg80211: Save the regulatory domain when
> > > > setting custom regulatory") forgets to free the newly allocated regd
> > > > object.
> > >
> > > Not really? It's not forgetting it, it just saves it?
> >
> > Yes, it saves the regd object in the function wiphy_apply_custom_regulatory.
>
> Right.
>
> > But its parent function - mac80211_hwsim_new_radio forgets to free
> > this object when the ieee80211_register_hw fails.
>
> But why is this specific to mac80211-hwsim?
>
> Any other code calling wiphy_apply_custom_regulatory() and then failing
> the subsequent wiphy_register() or otherwise calling wiphy_free() will
> run into the same situation.
>
> So why wouldn't we free this in wiphy_free(), if it exists?
>

Hi Johannes,

if zhao in the thread is right, we don't need to add this free
operation to wiphy_free().

What we should do is to only handle regd in the error handling code of
mac80211_hwsim_new_radio. This will not affect other users of
mac80211-hwsim. Any idea?

> johannes
>