[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240304073548.GA13620@unreal>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 09:35:48 +0200
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Wenchao Hao <haowenchao2@...wei.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/restrack: Fix potential invalid address access
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:21:19AM +0800, Wenchao Hao wrote:
> On 2024/3/3 20:57, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 05:55:15PM +0800, Wenchao Hao wrote:
> > > struct rdma_restrack_entry's kern_name was set to KBUILD_MODNAME
> > > in ib_create_cq(), while if the module exited but forgot del this
> > > rdma_restrack_entry, it would cause a invalid address access in
> > > rdma_restrack_clean() when print the owner of this rdma_restrack_entry.
> >
> > How is it possible to exit owner module without cleaning the resources?
> >
>
> I meet this issue with one of our product who develop their owner kernel
> modules based on ib_core, and there are terrible logic with the exit
> code which cause resource leak.
>
> Of curse it's bug of module who did not clear resource when exit, but
> I think ib_core should avoid accessing memory of other modules directly
> to provides better stability.
>
> What's more, from the context of rdma_restrack_clean() when print
> "restack: %s %s object allocated by %s is not freed ...", it seems
> designed for the above scene where client has bug to alerts there
> are resource leak, so we should not panic on this log print.
Can you please share the kernel panic?
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists