[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y5T6Mrb7cs6o/BqS@pop-os.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2022 13:29:22 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Hawkins Jiawei <yin31149@...il.com>
Cc: 18801353760@....com, cong.wang@...edance.com, davem@...emloft.net,
dvyukov@...gle.com, edumazet@...gle.com, jhs@...atatu.com,
jiri@...nulli.us, kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
syzbot+232ebdbd36706c965ebf@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net: sched: fix memory leak in tcindex_set_parms
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:19:56PM +0800, Hawkins Jiawei wrote:
> To be more specific, the simplified logic about original
> tcindex_set_parms() is as below:
>
> static int
> tcindex_set_parms(struct net *net, struct tcf_proto *tp, unsigned long base,
> u32 handle, struct tcindex_data *p,
> struct tcindex_filter_result *r, struct nlattr **tb,
> struct nlattr *est, u32 flags, struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> {
> ...
> if (p->perfect) {
> int i;
>
> if (tcindex_alloc_perfect_hash(net, cp) < 0)
> goto errout;
> cp->alloc_hash = cp->hash;
> for (i = 0; i < min(cp->hash, p->hash); i++)
> cp->perfect[i].res = p->perfect[i].res;
> balloc = 1;
> }
> cp->h = p->h;
>
> ...
>
> if (cp->perfect)
> r = cp->perfect + handle;
We can reach here if p->perfect is non-NULL.
> else
> r = tcindex_lookup(cp, handle) ? : &new_filter_result;
>
> if (old_r && old_r != r) {
> err = tcindex_filter_result_init(old_r, cp, net);
> if (err < 0) {
> kfree(f);
> goto errout_alloc;
> }
> }
> ...
> }
>
> - cp's h field is directly copied from p's h field
>
> - if `old_r` is retrieved from struct tcindex_filter, in other word,
> is retrieved from p's h field. Then the `r` should get the same value
> from `tcindex_loopup(cp, handle)`.
See above, 'r' can be 'cp->perfect + handle' which is newly allocated,
hence different from 'old_r'.
>
> - so `old_r == r` is true, code will never uses tcindex_filter_result_init()
> to clear the old_r in such case.
Not always.
>
> So I think this patch still can fix this memory leak caused by
> tcindex_filter_result_init(), But maybe I need to improve my
> commit message.
>
I think your patch may introduce other memory leaks and 'old_r' may
be left as obsoleted too.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists