lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Re: [PATCH] fix memory leak on kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:28:08AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:38:37PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:02:20PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:06:24PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > >
> > > > It seems to me that it would be better to do the anon_inode_getfd()
> > > > call before the kvm_get_kvm() call, and go to the fail label if it
> > > > fails.
> > >
> > > And what happens if another thread does close() on the (guessed) fd?
> >
> > Chaos ensues, but mostly because we don't have proper mutual exclusion
> > on the modifications to the list. I'll add a mutex_lock/unlock to
> > kvm_spapr_tce_release() and move the anon_inode_getfd() call inside
> > the mutex.
> >
> > It looks like the other possible uses of the fd (mmap, and passing it
> > as a parameter to the KVM_DEV_VFIO_GROUP_SET_SPAPR_TCE ioctl on a KVM
> > device fd) are safe.
>
> Frankly, it's a lot saner to have "no failure points past anon_inode_getfd()"
> policy...

Right. In my latest patch, there are no failure points past
anon_inode_getfd().

Paul.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-28 08:07    [W:0.799 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site