> On 05/01/2021 08:59, Dinghao Liu wrote:
> > When videobuf_waiton() fails, we should execute clean
> > functions to prevent memleak. It's the same when
> > __videobuf_copy_to_user() fails.
> >
> > Fixes: 7a7d9a89d0307 ("V4L/DVB (6251): Replace video-buf to a more generic approach")
> > Signed-off-by: Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
> > index 606a271bdd2d..0709b75d11cd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf-core.c
> > @@ -924,8 +924,12 @@ ssize_t videobuf_read_one(struct videobuf_queue *q,
> >
> > /* wait until capture is done */
> > retval = videobuf_waiton(q, q->read_buf, nonblocking, 1);
> > - if (0 != retval)
> > + if (retval != 0) {
> > + q->ops->buf_release(q, q->read_buf);
> > + kfree(q->read_buf);
> > + q->read_buf = NULL;
> > goto done;
> > + }
>
> I'm fairly certain that this is wrong: if waiton returns an error, then
> that means that the wait is either interrupted or that we are in non-blocking
> mode and no buffer has arrived yet. In that case you just go to done since
> there is nothing to clean up.
>
I found there was a similar error handling in videobuf_read_zerocopy(), where
q->read_buf was freed on failure of videobuf_waiton(), thus I reported this as
a memleak. Do you think the error handling in videobuf_read_zerocopy() is right?
> >
> > CALL(q, sync, q, q->read_buf);
> >
> > @@ -940,8 +944,12 @@ ssize_t videobuf_read_one(struct videobuf_queue *q,
> >
> > /* Copy to userspace */
> > retval = __videobuf_copy_to_user(q, q->read_buf, data, count, nonblocking);
> > - if (retval < 0)
> > + if (retval < 0) {
> > + q->ops->buf_release(q, q->read_buf);
> > + kfree(q->read_buf);
> > + q->read_buf = NULL;
> > goto done;
>
> I'm not sure about this either: if userspace gave a crappy pointer and this
> copy_to_user fails, then that doesn't mean you should release the buffer.
> The next read() might have a valid pointer or, more likely, the application
> exits or crashes and everything is cleaned up when the filehandle is closed.
>
You are right. Let's keep this part as it was for security.
Regards,
Dinghao
