Re: [PATCH] scsi: be_iscsi: fix possible memory leak and refactor code

[Geyslan Gregório Bem]

2013/11/18 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 14:18 -0200, Geyslan Gregório Bem wrote:
>> 2013/11/18 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 23:12 -0200, Geyslan Gregório Bem wrote:
>> >> 2013/11/17 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> >> > On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 19:09 -0200, Geyslan Gregório Bem wrote:
>> >> >> 2013/11/17 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> >> >> > On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 15:51 -0300, Geyslan G. Bem wrote:
>> >> >> >> This patch fix memory leakage in cases 'ISCSI_NET_PARAM_VLAN_ID' and
>> >> >> >> 'ISCSI_NET_PARAM_VLAN_PRIORITY' and refactors code 'going out' when
>> >> >> >> necessary.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You pointlessly renamed a variable, which makes the diff hard to read.
>> >> >> > Please don't do that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ok, I can agree. 'len' means length? What is returned in case of non
>> >> >> error?
>> >> >
>> >> > it returns the length of buf written to or negative error.
>> >> >
>> >> >> > You missed the fact that the passed in pointer is unmodified if
>> >> >> > mgmt_get_if_info() returns non zero, so the kfree frees junk and would
>> >> >> > oops.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > There's no need for a goto; len = -EINVAL; does everything that's
>> >> >> > needed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well, that is a coverity catch. CID 1128954. Check it.
>> >> >
>> >> > I didn't say coverity was wrong, I said your patch was (well not wrong,
>> >> > just over complex and incomplete).  This is the way to fix both
>> >> > problems.
>> >> >
>> >> > James
>> >> >
>> >> > ---
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/be2iscsi/be_iscsi.c b/drivers/scsi/be2iscsi/be_iscsi.c
>> >> > index ffadbee..9dcbdfa 100644
>> >> > --- a/drivers/scsi/be2iscsi/be_iscsi.c
>> >> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/be2iscsi/be_iscsi.c
>> >> > @@ -541,10 +541,8 @@ static int be2iscsi_get_if_param(struct beiscsi_hba *phba,
>> >> >                 ip_type = BE2_IPV6;
>> >>
>> >> James, this approach will not prevent the leakage.
>> >
>> > I don't see why not.  The -EINVAL case goes through the kfree() now too,
>> > no?
>>
>> I'm refering to the removal of kfree in your suggestion.
>
> That's the second bug I pointed out via code inspection.  If the
> function returns an error (any non zero return) then the pointer isn't
> altered, so we return without the free.  It's a standard error pattern.

Ok. So kfree is useless until the code go to the function bail. Right?

>
>> >
>> >>  We can initialize the if_info with NULL and always kfree it without
>> >> to care about junk.
>> >
>> > Why?  Error return means no allocation.
>> Setting if_info to NULL allow to kfree without concerns.
>>
>> Eg.:
>>
>> - struct be_cmd_get_if_info_resp *if_info;
>> + struct be_cmd_get_if_info_resp *if_info = NULL;
>>
>> ...
>>
>> +       if (len)
>> +               goto out;
>>
>> ...
>>
>> -               if (if_info->vlan_priority == BEISCSI_VLAN_DISABLE)
>> -                       return -EINVAL;
>> +               if (if_info->vlan_priority == BEISCSI_VLAN_DISABLE) {
>> +                       len = -EINVAL;
>> +                       goto out;
>> +               }
>
> What's the point of that?  Just removing the goto out; has the code
> going to the same place because of the break below.
>
> James
>
>

I agree whit you that the code goes to same place with or without goto
out. It's just a pattern to simplify future changes in the function.

But I can remove it if you want.


-- 
Regards,

Geyslan G. Bem
hackingbits.com
--
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/