linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] bpf: do not walk twice the hash map on free

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: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 14:52:35 +0200
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] bpf: do not walk twice the hash map on free

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 at 12:44, Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> If someone stores both a timer and a workqueue in a hash map, on free, we
> would walk it twice.
> Add a check in htab_free_malloced_timers_or_wq and free the timers
> and workqueues if they are present.
>
> Fixes: 246331e3f1ea ("bpf: allow struct bpf_wq to be embedded in arraymaps and hashmaps")
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>
>
> ---

I had forgotten how the extra_elems logic is working, turns out
everything is in the preallocated elems array and per-cpu extra_elems
stores the *pointer* to them for recycling without hitting the pcpu
allocator, so should be fine (just in case this confuses anyone else).

>
> changes in v3:
> - fix unloading of bpf_wq, again
>
> changes in v2:
> - fix wq being not freed (and static call not used)
> ---

Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>