On 06/13/2017 07:16 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 06/13/2017 09:01 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 03:06:44PM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
>>> >> It looks like there might be 2 issues with the uio_device allocation, or
>>> >> it
>>> >> looks like we are leaking the device for possibly a specific type of
>>> >> device
>>> >> case that I could not find but one of you may know about.
>>> >>
>>> >> Issues:
>>> >> 1. We use devm_kzalloc to allocate the uio_device, but the release
>>> >> function, devm_kmalloc_release, is just a noop, so the memory is never
>>> >> freed.
>> >
>> > What do you mean by this? If the release function is a noop, lots of
>> > memory in the kernel is leaking. UIO shouldn't have to do anything
>> > special here, is the devm api somehow broken?
> Sorry. I misdiagnosed the problem. It's a noop, but we did kfree on the
> entire devres and its data later.
>
> The problem I was hitting is that memory is not freed until the parent
> is removed. __uio_register_device does:
>
> idev = devm_kzalloc(parent, sizeof(*idev), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!idev) {
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
>
> so the devres's memory is associated with the parent. Is that intentional?
>
What I meant is that it I can send a patch to just fix up the
devm_kzalloc use in uio.c, so it gets the device struct for the uio
device instead of the parent.
However, it looks like the existing code using the parent prevents a
crash. If the child is hot unplugged/removed, and uio_unregister_device
ends up freeing the idev, then later when the userspace application does
a close on the uio device we would try to access the freed idev in
uio_release.
If the devm_kzalloc parent use was meant for that hot unplug case, then
I can also look into how to fix the drivers too.
