From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Latchesar Ionkov" Subject: Re: net/9p/mux.c: use-after-free Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:13:34 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20070723012014.GV26212@stusta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Adrian Bunk" , v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric Van Hensbergen" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Yep, it's a leak. Thanks, Lucho On 7/25/07, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > On 7/22/07, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > The Coverity checker spotted the following use-after-free > > in net/9p/mux.c: > > > > <-- snip --> > > > > ... > > struct p9_conn *p9_conn_create(struct p9_transport *trans, int msize, > > unsigned char *extended) > > { > > ... > > if (!m->tagpool) { > > kfree(m); > > return ERR_PTR(PTR_ERR(m->tagpool)); > > } > > ... > > > > <-- snip --> > > > > I've got a fix for this one: > if (!m->tagpool) { > mtmp = ERR_PTR(PTR_ERR(m->tagpool)); > kfree(m); > return mtmp; > } > > but I was wondering about one of the other returns further down the function: > > ... > memset(&m->poll_waddr, 0, sizeof(m->poll_waddr)); > m->poll_task = NULL; > n = p9_mux_poll_start(m); > if (n) > return ERR_PTR(n); > > n = trans->poll(trans, &m->pt); > ... > > lucho: doesn't that constitute a leak? Shouldn't we be doing: > > if (n) { > kfree(m); > return ERR_PTR(n); > } > > -eric >