Re: [PATCH] livepatch: Fix leak on klp_init_patch_early failure path
flat view
From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Date: 2021-12-13 22:58:50
Also in:
live-patching, lkml
Josh Poimboeuf [off-list ref] wrote on Mon [2021-Dec-13 12:10:22 -0800]:
The patch description needs a few tweaks. In the kernel we don't use Markdown for patch descriptions. A function can be postfixed with a trailing pair of parentheses, like klp_enable_patch(). Other symbols can be enclosed with single quotes, like 'struct klp_object'. I'd also recommend avoiding the excessive use of "we", in favor of more imperative-type language. See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for more details. It's also a good idea to look at some kernel commit logs to get a general idea of the kernel patch description style.
Understood, I'll take a read through and re-submit the patch to honor the norms for Linux kernel patches. My sincere apologies for the noise, and thank you for the positive and constructive suggestions.
I don't think the fix will be quite that simple. For example, if klp_init_patch_early() fails, that means try_module_get() hasn't been done, so klp_free_patch_finish() will wrongly do a module_put().
Ugh, good point and thank you for catching that. Another problem with the current patch is that we'll call kobject_put() on the patch even if we never call kobject_init on the patch due to patch->objs being NULL. Perhaps we should pull try_module_get() and the NULL check for patch->objs out of klp_init_patch_early()? It feels a bit more intuitive to me if klp_init_patch_early() were only be responsible for initializing kobjects for the patch and its objects / funcs anyways. Testing it locally seems to work fine. Let me know if this sounds reasonable to you, and I'll send out a v2 patch with the fixes to both the patch description, and logic. - David