linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH rdma-next 4/8] IB/core: Skip device which doesn't have necessary capabilities

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 8 Apr 2021 09:16:01 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...nelisnetworks.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...nelisnetworks.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rds-devel@....oracle.com" <rds-devel@....oracle.com>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 4/8] IB/core: Skip device which doesn't have
 necessary capabilities

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 03:44:35PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:

> > If it returns EOPNOTUPP then the remove is never called so if it allocated
> > memory and left it allocated then it is leaking memory.
> > 
> I probably confused you. There is no leak today because add_one
> allocates memory, and later on when SA/CM etc per port cap is not
> present, it is unused left there which is freed on remove_one().
> Returning EOPNOTUPP is fine at start of add_one() before allocation.

Most of ULPs are OK, eg umad does:

	umad_dev = kzalloc(struct_size(umad_dev, ports, e - s + 1), GFP_KERNEL);
	if (!umad_dev)
		return -ENOMEM;
	for (i = s; i <= e; ++i) {
		if (!rdma_cap_ib_mad(device, i))
			continue;

	if (!count) {
		ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
		goto free;
free:
	/* balances kref_init */
	ib_umad_dev_put(umad_dev);

It looks like only cm.c and cma.c need fixing, just fix those two.

The CM using ULPs have a different issue though..

Jason