Hi,
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 04:12:37PM +0800, leixiang wrote:
> Dear Alex,
> Thank you for your reply and suggestions.
>
> On 2024/7/9 18:12, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Adding the kvmtool maintainers (you can find them in the README file).
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 03:52:47PM +0800, leixiang wrote:
> >> Fix memory leakage in disk/core disk_image__open_all when malloc disk failed,
> >> should free the disks that already malloced.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Lei Xiang <leixiang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Suggested-by: Xie Ming <xieming@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> disk/core.c | 6 ++++--
> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/disk/core.c b/disk/core.c
> >> index dd2f258..affeece 100644
> >> --- a/disk/core.c
> >> +++ b/disk/core.c
> >> @@ -195,8 +195,10 @@ static struct disk_image **disk_image__open_all(struct kvm *kvm)
> >>
> >> if (wwpn) {
> >> disks[i] = malloc(sizeof(struct disk_image));
> >> - if (!disks[i])
> >> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >> + if (!disks[i]) {
> >> + err = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >> + goto error;
> >> + }
> >> disks[i]->wwpn = wwpn;
> >> disks[i]->tpgt = tpgt;
> >
> > Currently, the latest patch on branch master is ca31abf5d9c3 ("arm64: Allow
> > the user to select the max SVE vector length"), and struct disk_image
> > doesn't have a tpgt field. Did you write this patch on a local branch?
> >
> >> continue;
> >
> There is no doubt that you are correct, I had realize that I git clone a wrong repo.
> > This is what the 'error' label does:
> >
> > error:
> > for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
> > if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(disks[i]))
> > disk_image__close(disks[i]);
> >
> > free(disks);
> > return err;
> >
> > And disk_image__close() ends up poking all sort of fields from struct
> > disk_image, including dereferencing pointers embedded in the struct. If
> > WWPN is specified for a disk, struct disk_image is allocated using malloc
> > as above, the field wwwpn is set and the rest of the fields are left
> > uninitialized. Because of this, calling disk_image__close() on a struct
> > disk_image with wwpn can lead to all sorts of nasty things happening.
> >
> > May I suggest allocating disks[i] using calloc in the wwpn case to fix
> > this? Ideally, you would have two patches:
> >
> > 1. A patch that changes the disk[i] allocation to calloc(), to prevent
> > disk_image__close() accessing unitialized fields when disk_image__open()
> > fails after initialized a WWPN disk.
> >
> > 2. This patch.
> >
> When the new disk_image is allocated successfully,
> the fields will eventually be initialized by disk_image__new().
> And disk_image__close() accessing fields also checked before use.
> So I don't think it's necessary to replace malloc with calloc.
When and where is disk_image__new() called?
Thanks,
Alex
