Re: [PATCH v2] platform/x86: think-lmi: Fix memory leak when showing current settings

From: Mirsad Goran Todorovac
Date: Fri Mar 31 2023 - 15:34:32 EST


On 31. 03. 2023. 20:09, Armin Wolf wrote:
> When retriving a item string with tlmi_setting(), the result has to be
> freed using kfree(). In current_value_show() however, malformed
> item strings are not freed, causing a memory leak.
> Fix this by eliminating the early return responsible for this.
>
> Reported-by: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/01e920bc-5882-ba0c-dd15-868bf0eca0b8@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t
> Fixes: a40cd7ef22fb ("platform/x86: think-lmi: Add WMI interface support on Lenovo platforms")
> Signed-off-by: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@xxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Add Reported-by: and Link: tags
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
> index cc66f7cbccf2..8cafb9d4016c 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
> @@ -930,10 +930,12 @@ static ssize_t current_value_show(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *a
> /* validate and split from `item,value` -> `value` */
> value = strpbrk(item, ",");
> if (!value || value == item || !strlen(value + 1))
> - return -EINVAL;
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + else
> + ret = sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", value + 1);
>
> - ret = sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", value + 1);
> kfree(item);
> +
> return ret;
> }

Hi, Armin,

You might have wanted it to be tested in the original setting?

Should this patch work as a standalone fix, without the others?

This part:

@@ -929,8 +929,10 @@ static ssize_t current_value_show(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *a

/* validate and split from `item,value` -> `value` */
value = strpbrk(item, ",");
- if (!value || value == item || !strlen(value + 1))
+ if (!value || value == item || !strlen(value + 1)) {
+ kfree(item);
return -EINVAL;
+ }

ret = sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", value + 1);
kfree(item);

was apparently superseded.

Should this one be applied? I guess it should, as I stated in email
<4dc118c2-0dde-bd5e-ea41-427ed33e4545@xxxxxxxxxxxx> from 2023-03-29 20:49 UTC+02:

@@ -1457,10 +1458,10 @@ static int tlmi_analyze(void)
* name string.
* Try and pull that out if it's available.
*/
- char *item, *optstart, *optend;
+ char *optitem, *optstart, *optend;

- if (!tlmi_setting(setting->index, &item, LENOVO_BIOS_SETTING_GUID)) {
- optstart = strstr(item, "[Optional:");
+ if (!tlmi_setting(setting->index, &optitem, LENOVO_BIOS_SETTING_GUID)) {
+ optstart = strstr(optitem, "[Optional:");
if (optstart) {
optstart += strlen("[Optional:");
optend = strstr(optstart, "]");
@@ -1469,6 +1470,7 @@ static int tlmi_analyze(void)
kstrndup(optstart, optend - optstart,
GFP_KERNEL);
}
+ kfree(optitem);
}
}
/*

If Mark had found a better fix, then that one goes away, too.

NOTE PLEASE that in the above-mentioned message (like all the others) I just specified the
commit at which the test kernel was built + all the applied patches (git diff did not give
authors).

This did not imply that I claim Mr. Weißschuh's fix for tlmi_analyze() return, God forbid!
I apologise if I made room for such an impression.

That's all, I think. Thank Heavens. God bless!

I will assume the test build on the bottom patch + the Thomas's patch still apply + your patch.

Best regards,
Mirsad

--
Mirsad Goran Todorovac
Sistem inženjer
Grafički fakultet | Akademija likovnih umjetnosti
Sveučilište u Zagrebu

System engineer
Faculty of Graphic Arts | Academy of Fine Arts
University of Zagreb, Republic of Croatia
The European Union

"I see something approaching fast ... Will it be friends with me?"