Re: kobject_init_and_add() confusion

[Tobin C. Harding]

On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 09:54:16AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:38 AM Tobin C. Harding <me@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Looks like I've created a bit of confusion trying to fix memleaks in
> > calls to kobject_init_and_add().  Its spread over various patches and
> > mailing lists so I'm starting a new thread and CC'ing anyone that
> > commented on one of those patches.
> >
> > If there is a better way to go about this discussion please do tell me.
> >
> > The problem
> > -----------
> >
> > Calls to kobject_init_and_add() are leaking memory throughout the kernel
> > because of how the error paths are handled.
> >
> > The solution
> > ------------
> >
> > Write the error path code correctly.
> >
> > Example
> > -------
> >
> > We have samples/kobject/kobject-example.c but it uses
> > kobject_create_and_add().  I thought of adding another example file here
> > but could not think of how to do it off the top of my head without being
> > super contrived.  Can add this to the TODO list if it will help.
> >
> > Here is an attempted canonical usage of kobject_init_and_add() typical
> > of the code that currently is getting it wrong.  This is the second time
> > I've written this and the first time it was wrong even after review (you
> > know who you are, you are definitely buying the next round of drinks :)
> >
> >
> > Assumes we have an object in memory already that has the kobject
> > embedded in it. Variable 'kobj' below would typically be &ptr->kobj
> >
> >
> >         void fn(void)
> >         {
> >                 int ret;
> >
> >                 ret = kobject_init_and_add(kobj, ktype, NULL, "foo");
> >                 if (ret) {
> >                         /*
> >                          * This means kobject_init() has succeeded
> >                          * but kobject_add() failed.
> >                          */
> >                         goto err_put;
> >                 }
> >
> >                 ret = some_init_fn();
> >                 if (ret) {
> >                         /*
> >                          * We need to wind back kobject_add() AND kobject_put().
> 
> kobject_add() and kobject_init() I suppose?

You are correct, my mistake.

> >                          * kobject_add() incremented the refcount in
> >                          * kobj->parent, that needs to be decremented THEN we need
> >                          * the call to kobject_put() to decrement the refcount of kobj.
> >                          */
> 
> So actually, if you look at kobject_cleanup(), it calls kobject_del()
> if kobj->state_in_sysfs is set.
> 
> Now, if you look at kobject_add_internal(), it sets
> kobj->state_in_sysfs when about to return 0 (success).
> 
> Therefore calling kobject_put() without the preceding kobject_del() is
> not a bug technically, even though it will trigger the "auto cleanup
> kobject_del" message with debug enabled.

Thanks for this explanation.  Points noted.

> 
> >                         goto err_del;
> >                 }
> >
> >                 ret = some_other_init_fn();
> >                 if (ret)
> >                         goto other_err;
> >
> >                 kobject_uevent(kobj, KOBJ_ADD);
> >                 return 0;
> >
> >         other_err:
> >                 other_clean_up_fn();
> >         err_del:
> >                 kobject_del(kobj);
> >         err_put:
> >                 kobject_put(kobj);
> >
> >                 return ret;
> >         }
> >
> >
> > Have I got this correct?
> >
> > TODO
> > ----
> >
> > - Fix all the callsites to kobject_init_and_add()
> > - Further clarify the function docstring for kobject_init_and_add() [perhaps]
> > - Add a section to Documentation/kobject.txt [optional]
> > - Add a sample usage file under samples/kobject [optional]
> 
> The plan sounds good to me, but there is one thing to note IMO:
> kobject_cleanup() invokes the ->release() callback for the ktype, so
> these callbacks need to be able to cope with kobjects after a failing
> kobject_add() which may not be entirely obvious to developers
> introducing them ATM.

During docs fixes I'll try to work this in.

Thanks,
Tobin.