Re: [PATCH] Fix for binary_sysctl() memory leak

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:38:58 -0800
Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think the patch is correct but the description is misleading?
> >
> > I see no memory leak here. __Calling __putname() directly simply
> > bypasses some audit-related stuff.
> 
> Hmmm, maybe I wasn't explicit enough about it. We are definitely
> seeing a memory leak without the patch.
> 
> When auditing is enabled, putname() calls audit_putname *instead* (not
> in addition) to __putname(). Then, if a syscall is in progress,
> audit_putname does not release the name - instead, it expects the name
> to get released when the syscall completes, but that will happen only
> if audit_getname() was called previously, i.e. if the name was
> allocated with getname() rather than the naked __getname(). So,
> __getname() followed by putname() ends up leaking memory.
> 

OK.  Please resend with a new changelog?

The bug surprises me - it seems that it makes it trivial for userspace
to cause leaking of mad amounts of kernel memory, which would cause the
bug to be found and fixed quickly.

Is it a recent regression, or does the bug trigger only in weird
circumstances, or what?


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/