From: Ken Brown <kbrown@cornell.edu>
To: cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Potential handle leaks in dup_worker
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:31:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4b8c6b7a-07af-2080-e105-2f22374e5bd8@cornell.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210209150249.GT4251@calimero.vinschen.de>
On 2/9/2021 10:02 AM, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin-developers wrote:
> On Feb 9 09:19, Ken Brown via Cygwin-developers wrote:
>> On 2/9/2021 4:47 AM, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin-developers wrote:
>>> On Feb 8 12:39, Ken Brown via Cygwin-developers wrote:
>>>> I've had occasion to work through dtable::dup_worker, and I'm seeing the
>>>> potential for leaks of path_conv handles. I haven't seen any evidence that
>>>> the leaks actually occur, but the code should probably be cleaned up if I'm
>>>> right.
>>>>
>>>> dup_worker calls clone to create newfh from oldfh. clone calls copyto,
>>>> which calls operator=, which calls path_conv::operator=, which duplicates
>>>> the path_conv handle from oldfh to newfh. Then copyto calls reset, which
>>>> calls path_conv::operator<<, which again duplicates the path_conv handle
>>>> from oldfh to newfh without first closing the previous one. That's the
>>>> first leak.
>>>>
>>>> Further on, dup_worker calls newfh->pc.reset_conv_handle (), which sets the
>>>> path_conv handle of newfh to NULL without closing the existing handle. So
>>>> that's a second leak. This one is easily fixed by calling close_conv_handle
>>>> instead of reset_conv_handle.
>>>
>>> Nice detective work, you're right. For fun, this is easily testable.
>>> Apply this patch to Cygwin:
>>> [...]
>>>> As a practical matter, I think the path_conv handle of oldfh is always NULL
>>>> when dup_worker is called, so there's no actual leak.
>>>
>>> Right, because conv_handle should only be non-NULL in calls to stat(2)
>>> and friends.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, it's a bad idea to keep this code. So the question is
>>> this: Do we actually *need* to duplicate the conv_handle at all?
>>> It doesn't look like this is ever needed. Perhaps the code should
>>> just never duplicate conv_handle and just always reset it to NULL
>>> instead?
>>
>> I've come across one place where I think it's needed. Suppose build_fh_name
>> is called with PC_KEEP_HANDLE. It calls build_fh_pc, which calls set_name,
>> which calls path_conv::operator<<. I think we need to duplicate conv_handle
>> here.
>
> Indeed, you're right. I just found that the fhandler_base::reset method
> is only called from copyto. Given that fhandler::operator= already
> calls path_conv::operator=, and that duplicates the conv handle, why
> call path_conv::operator<< from fhandler_base::reset at all? It looks
> like this is only duplicating what already has been done.
I think that's right. It looks like operator<< differs from operator= only in
being careful not to overwrite an existing path. So I can't see that it ever
makes sense to call operator<< right after calling operator=.
Ken
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-09 15:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-08 17:39 Ken Brown
2021-02-09 9:47 ` Corinna Vinschen
2021-02-09 14:19 ` Ken Brown
2021-02-09 15:02 ` Corinna Vinschen
2021-02-09 15:04 ` Corinna Vinschen
2021-02-09 15:31 ` Ken Brown [this message]
2021-02-09 16:12 ` Corinna Vinschen
2021-02-09 17:13 ` Ken Brown
2021-02-09 19:12 ` Ken Brown
2021-02-09 20:52 ` Corinna Vinschen
2021-02-09 22:31 ` Ken Brown
2021-02-10 9:52 ` Corinna Vinschen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4b8c6b7a-07af-2080-e105-2f22374e5bd8@cornell.edu \
--to=kbrown@cornell.edu \
--cc=cygwin-developers@cygwin.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).