On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 12:40 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 11:03:36AM +0800, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> > On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 5:35 AM 慕冬亮 <mudongliangabcd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On May 28, 2021, at 10:05 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 09:50:49PM +0800, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Can you please give some advise on how to fix this WARN issue?
> > > >
> > > > But it feels like it spoils the fun if I write the commit... Anyway:
> > >
> > > It’s fine. I am still in the learning process. It’s also good to learn experience by comparing your patch and my patch.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > dan carpenter
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/sound/core/control_led.c b/sound/core/control_led.c
> > > > index 25f57c14f294..dd357abc1b58 100644
> > > > --- a/sound/core/control_led.c
> > > > +++ b/sound/core/control_led.c
> > > > @@ -740,6 +740,7 @@ static int __init snd_ctl_led_init(void)
> > > > for (; group > 0; group--) {
> > > > led = &snd_ctl_leds[group - 1];
> > > > device_del(&led->dev);
> > > > + device_put(&led->dev);
> > > > }
> > > > device_del(&snd_ctl_led_dev);
> > > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > > @@ -768,6 +769,7 @@ static void __exit snd_ctl_led_exit(void)
> > > > for (group = 0; group < MAX_LED; group++) {
> > > > led = &snd_ctl_leds[group];
> > > > device_del(&led->dev);
> > > > + device_put(&led->dev);
> > > > }
> > > > device_del(&snd_ctl_led_dev);
> > > > snd_ctl_led_clean(NULL);
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I tried this patch, and it still triggers the memleak.
>
> Did your patch fix the leak? Because my patch should have been
> equivalent except for it fixes an additional leak in the snd_ctl_led_init()
> error path.
The syzbot link is [1]. I have tested my patch in the syzbot dashboard
and my local workspace.
I think the reason why your patch did not work should be
led_card(struct snd_ctl_led_card) is already freed before returning in
snd_ctl_led_sysfs_remove, rather than led(struct snd_ctl_led). See the
implementation of snd_ctl_led_sysfs_remove for some details. Please
correct me if I make any mistakes.
static void snd_ctl_led_sysfs_remove(struct snd_card *card)
{
unsigned int group;
struct snd_ctl_led_card *led_card;
struct snd_ctl_led *led;
char link_name[32];
for (group = 0; group < MAX_LED; group++) {
led = &snd_ctl_leds[group];
led_card = led->cards[card->number];
if (!led_card)
continue;
snprintf(link_name, sizeof(link_name), "led-%s", led->name);
sysfs_remove_link(&card->ctl_dev.kobj, link_name);
sysfs_remove_link(&led_card->dev.kobj, "card");
device_del(&led_card->dev);
put_device(&led_card->dev);
kfree(led_card);
led->cards[card->number] = NULL;
}
}
[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=6d9e1e89003c894e7a1855c92dfa558ebcb8f218
>
> > My
> > understanding is that the device object is already freed in the
> > snd_ctl_led_sysfs_remove.
> >
>
> "Already freed"? Is it a memleak or is it a double free??? I probably
> should have read the syzbot email on this... But you didn't include
> a link to it or a reported-by tag so I don't have a way to look at the
> actual bug.
I listed the reported-by tag and fixes tag in the first email in this
thread. The syzbot link is [1].
Please take a look at my patch testing request.
>
> I did fix a bug, though... Just not the one from the report I guess.
> Please send a link to the bug report so I can look at that. ;)
We should talk about different bugs, memory leak for different objects
and different paths.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
