Re: [PATCH] kunit: executor: Fix a memory leak on failure in kunit_filter_tests

[Yujie Liu]

Hi David,

On 7/12/2022 17:56, David Gow wrote:
> It's possible that memory allocation for the copy will fail, but for the

I think it is "for the _filtered_ will fail". Maybe a typo?

Thanks,
Yujie

> copy of the suite to succeed. In this case, the copy could be leaked.
>
> Properly free 'copy' in the error case for the allocation of 'filtered'
> failing.
>
> Note that there may also have been a similar issue in
> kunit_filter_subsuites, before it was removed in "kunit: flatten
> kunit_suite*** to kunit_suite** in .kunit_test_suites".
>
> This was reported by clang-analyzer via the kernel test robot, here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c8073b8e-7b9e-0830-4177-87c12f16349c@xxxxxxxxx/
>
> Fixes: a02353f49162 ("kunit: bail out of test filtering logic quicker if OOM")
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <yujie.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   lib/kunit/executor.c | 4 +++-
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> index 6c489d6c5e5d..5e223327196a 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> @@ -74,8 +74,10 @@ kunit_filter_tests(const struct kunit_suite *const suite, const char *test_glob)
>   		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>   
>   	filtered = kcalloc(n + 1, sizeof(*filtered), GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (!filtered)
> +	if (!filtered) {
> +		kfree(copy);
>   		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +	}
>   
>   	n = 0;
>   	kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {