Re: Re: [PATCH] fix memory leak on kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce

[Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:28:08AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:38:37PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:02:20PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:06:24PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > 
> > > > It seems to me that it would be better to do the anon_inode_getfd()
> > > > call before the kvm_get_kvm() call, and go to the fail label if it
> > > > fails.
> > > 
> > > And what happens if another thread does close() on the (guessed) fd?
> > 
> > Chaos ensues, but mostly because we don't have proper mutual exclusion
> > on the modifications to the list.  I'll add a mutex_lock/unlock to
> > kvm_spapr_tce_release() and move the anon_inode_getfd() call inside
> > the mutex.
> > 
> > It looks like the other possible uses of the fd (mmap, and passing it
> > as a parameter to the KVM_DEV_VFIO_GROUP_SET_SPAPR_TCE ioctl on a KVM
> > device fd) are safe.
> 
> Frankly, it's a lot saner to have "no failure points past anon_inode_getfd()"
> policy...

Right.  In my latest patch, there are no failure points past
anon_inode_getfd().

Paul.