Re: [PATCH] kprobes: fix a memory leak in functionpre_handler_kretprobe()

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:10:12 +0800
Jiang Liu <liuj97@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In function pre_handler_kretprobe(), the allocated kretprobe_instance object
> will get leaked if the entry_handler callback returns non-zero. This may cause
> all the preallocated kretprobe_instance objects exhausted. This issue could be
> reproduced by changing samples/kprobes/kretprobe_example.c to probe
> "mutex_unlock". And the fix is straight forward, just put the allocated
> kretprobe_instance object back onto the free_instances list.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@xxxxxxxxx>
> CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---
>  kernel/kprobes.c |    6 +++++-
>  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
> index e5d8464..2423295 100644
> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -1673,8 +1673,12 @@ static int __kprobes pre_handler_kretprobe(struct kprobe *p,
>  		ri->rp = rp;
>  		ri->task = current;
>  
> -		if (rp->entry_handler && rp->entry_handler(ri, regs))
> +		if (rp->entry_handler && rp->entry_handler(ri, regs)) {
> +			spin_lock_irqsave(&rp->lock, flags);
> +			hlist_add_head(&ri->hlist, &rp->free_instances);
> +			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rp->lock, flags);
>  			return 0;
> +		}
>  

kernel/kprobes.c: In function 'pre_handler_kretprobe':
kernel/kprobes.c:1677: warning: passing argument 1 of 'spinlock_check' from incompatible pointer type
include/linux/spinlock.h:272: note: expected 'struct spinlock_t *' but argument is of type 'struct raw_spinlock_t *'
kernel/kprobes.c:1679: warning: passing argument 1 of 'spin_unlock_irqrestore' from incompatible pointer type
include/linux/spinlock.h:338: note: expected 'struct spinlock_t *' but argument is of type 'struct raw_spinlock_t *'

--- a/kernel/kprobes.c~kprobes-fix-a-memory-leak-in-function-pre_handler_kretprobe-fix
+++ a/kernel/kprobes.c
@@ -1674,9 +1674,9 @@ static int __kprobes pre_handler_kretpro
 		ri->task = current;
 
 		if (rp->entry_handler && rp->entry_handler(ri, regs)) {
-			spin_lock_irqsave(&rp->lock, flags);
+			raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rp->lock, flags);
 			hlist_add_head(&ri->hlist, &rp->free_instances);
-			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rp->lock, flags);
+			raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rp->lock, flags);
 			return 0;
 		}
 

I'm surprised you didn't notice the warning spew.  How well tested is
this code?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/