On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <a...@plumgrid.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Masami Ichikawa <masami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> kmemleak reported some memory leak as below.
>
> grrr. yes. sorry.
>
>> unreferenced object 0xffff8800d6ea4000 (size 512):
>> comm "sshd", pid 278, jiffies 4294898315 (age 46.653s)
>> hex dump (first 32 bytes):
>> 21 00 00 00 04 00 00 00 15 00 01 00 3e 00 00 c0 !...........>...
>> 06 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ........!.......
>> backtrace:
>> [<ffffffff8151414e>] kmemleak_alloc+0x4e/0xb0
>> [<ffffffff811a3a40>] __kmalloc+0x280/0x320
>> [<ffffffff8110842e>] prctl_set_seccomp+0x11e/0x3b0
>> [<ffffffff8107bb6b>] SyS_prctl+0x3bb/0x4a0
>> [<ffffffff8152ef2d>] system_call_fastpath+0x1a/0x1f
>> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
>>
>> This memory leak happend in seccomp_attach_filter().
>> The fp pointer was allocated via kzalloc so that it needs to realase memory
>> when leaving from function.
Thanks for the catch!
>> This patch changed two things.
>> One is set -ENOMEM to ret, if fp is unable to get memory.
>> The other is removes "return 0" statement, and frees fp pointer before
>> leaving.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Masami Ichikawa <masami...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/seccomp.c | 8 +++++---
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
>> index d8d046c..a9ce7a9 100644
>> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
>> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
>> @@ -259,8 +259,10 @@ static long seccomp_attach_filter(struct sock_fprog
>> *fprog)
>> filter = kzalloc(sizeof(struct seccomp_filter) +
>> sizeof(struct sock_filter_int) * new_len,
>> GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_NOWARN);
>> - if (!filter)
>> + if (!filter) {
>> + ret = -ENOMEM;
>> goto free_prog;
>> + }
>
> agree. that's a good addition.
>
>> ret = sk_convert_filter(fp, fprog->len, filter->insnsi, &new_len);
>> if (ret)
>> @@ -275,10 +277,10 @@ static long seccomp_attach_filter(struct sock_fprog
>> *fprog)
>> */
>> filter->prev = current->seccomp.filter;
>> current->seccomp.filter = filter;
>> - return 0;
>
> I think mixing error and ok return paths is ugly.
> Can you add kfree(fp) here instead of removing return 0?
>
> Thanks!
>
>> free_filter:
>> - kfree(filter);
>> + if (ret)
>> + kfree(filter);
>> free_prog:
>> kfree(fp);
>> return ret;
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
Yeah, I'd prefer a different approach that follows the existing
conventions in the code. I'll send a separate patch.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
