Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] x86/MCE/AMD: Fix memory leak when `threshold_create_bank()` fails

Borislav Petkov
2022-03-27T22:52:33Z

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 08:53:06AM +0700, Ammar Faizi wrote:
> In mce_threshold_create_device(), if threshold_create_bank() fails, the
> @bp will be leaked, because the call to mce_threshold_remove_device()
> will not free the @bp. mce_threshold_remove_device() frees
> @threshold_banks. At that point, the @bp has not been written to
> @threshold_banks, @threshold_banks is NULL, so the call is just a nop.
>
> Fix this by extracting the cleanup part into a new static function
> _mce_threshold_remove_device(), then call it from create/remove device
> functions.
>
> Also, eliminate the "goto out_err", just early return inside the loop
> if the creation fails.
>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.8+
> Fixes: 6458de97fc15 ("x86/mce/amd: Straighten CPU hotplug path")

How did you decide this is the commit that this is fixing?

> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/9dfe087a-f941-1bc4-657d-7e7c198888ff@gnuweeb.org

That Link tag is not needed.

> Co-authored-by: Alviro Iskandar Setiawan <alviro.iskandar@gnuweeb.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alviro Iskandar Setiawan <alviro.iskandar@gnuweeb.org>
> Co-authored-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>

There's no "Co-authored-by".

The correct tag is described in

Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst

Please make sure you've read that file before sending patches.

> Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

...

> @@ -1350,15 +1357,14 @@ int mce_threshold_create_device(unsigned int cpu)
> if (!(this_cpu_read(bank_map) & (1 << bank)))
> continue;
> err = threshold_create_bank(bp, cpu, bank);
> - if (err)
> - goto out_err;
> + if (err) {
> + _mce_threshold_remove_device(bp, numbanks);
> + return err;
> + }
> }
> this_cpu_write(threshold_banks, bp);

Do I see it correctly that the publishing of the @bp pointer - i.e.,
this line - should be moved right above the for loop?

Then mce_threshold_remove_device() would properly free it in the error
case and your patch turns into a oneliner?

And then your Fixes: tag would be correct too...

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.