Lucas De Marchi <[email protected]> wrote: > Callers of call_usermodehelper_fns() should check the return value and > free themselves the data passed if the return is -ENOMEM. This is > because the subprocess_info is allocated in this function, and if the > allocation fail, the cleanup function cannot be called. > > However call_usermodehelper_exec() may also return -ENOMEM, in which > case the cleanup function is called. This means that if the caller > checked the return code, it was risking running the cleanup twice (like > kernel/sys.c:orderly_poweroff()) and if not, a leak could happen. > > This patch fixes both call_usermodehelper_fns() to never call the > cleanup function in case retval == -ENOMEM and also the callers to > actually check the return value of this function.
I suspect it's probably better to always call the cleanup function from call_usermodehelper_fns() rather than have the cleanup done by the caller in some circumstances and not others - would it make sense to change the cleanup function to take the pointer to the caller data rather than to take the subprocess_info struct? David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
