From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@profusion.mobi>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usermodehelper: Fix -ENOMEM return logic
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:06:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130225160642.GA31806@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1361802350-9299-1-git-send-email-lucas.demarchi@profusion.mobi>
On 02/25, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>
> Callers of call_usermodehelper_fns() should check the return value and
> free themselves the data passed if the return is -ENOMEM. This is
> because the subprocess_info is allocated in this function, and if the
> allocation fail, the cleanup function cannot be called.
Yes, this is confusing.
> However call_usermodehelper_exec() may also return -ENOMEM,
Yes, and we can't distinguish this case from info == NULL case,
> in which
> case the cleanup function is called. This means that if the caller
> checked the return code, it was risking running the cleanup twice (like
> kernel/sys.c:orderly_poweroff()) and if not, a leak could happen.
In short: every user of call_usermodehelper_fns(cleanup != NULL)
is buggy. Thanks.
But I am not sure I agree with the patch...
> static void call_usermodehelper_freeinfo(struct subprocess_info *info)
> {
> - if (info->cleanup)
> + if (info->cleanup && info->retval != -ENOMEM)
> (*info->cleanup)(info);
> kfree(info);
> }
This doesn't look very clean/robust. And in general, personally I
dislike the fact that ENOMEM has the special meaning. IOW, I think
we should cleanup this logic, not to complicate it more.
And in fact I do not think this is right, at least in UMH_NO_WAIT
case, shouldn't avoid ->cleanup() if, say, prepare_kernel_cred()
fails in ____call_usermodehelper()...
I think we should extract call_usermodehelper_setup() +
call_usermodehelper_setfns() into the new helper and export it.
And export call_usermodehelper_exec() as well.
call_usermodehelper_setfns() as a separate function makes no sense.
Then we can fix call_modprobe/orderly_poweroff, something like below.
What do you think?
Oleg.
--- x/kernel/kmod.c
+++ x/kernel/kmod.c
@@ -98,8 +98,14 @@ static int call_modprobe(char *module_na
argv[3] = module_name; /* check free_modprobe_argv() */
argv[4] = NULL;
- return call_usermodehelper_fns(modprobe_path, argv, envp,
- wait | UMH_KILLABLE, NULL, free_modprobe_argv, NULL);
+ info = call_usermodehelper_setup(...); // better name, please...
+ if (!info)
+ goto free_modname;
+
+ return call_usermodehelper_exec(info, wait);
+
+free_modname:
+ kfree(module_name);
free_argv:
kfree(argv);
out:
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-25 16:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-25 14:25 [PATCH] usermodehelper: Fix -ENOMEM return logic Lucas De Marchi
2013-02-25 15:05 ` David Howells
2013-02-25 16:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-02-25 16:06 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-02-25 17:38 ` Lucas De Marchi
2013-02-25 18:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-07 2:05 ` Lucas De Marchi
2013-03-07 19:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-07 19:47 ` Lucas De Marchi
2013-03-07 20:07 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-07 21:35 ` Lucas De Marchi
2013-02-25 17:10 ` [PATCH 0/1] usermodehelper: cleanup/fix __orderly_poweroff() && argv_free() Oleg Nesterov
2013-02-25 17:11 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130225160642.GA31806@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=james.l.morris@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@profusion.mobi \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox