[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <808ad381-179c-4975-a3f5-1d7cad00320b@moroto.mountain>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 14:04:26 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>
Cc: linux-hams@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, kuba@...nel.org,
edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net, jreuter@...na.de,
lars@...bit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ax25: Fix refcount leak issues of ax25_dev
On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 02:02:18PM +0800, Duoming Zhou wrote:
> @@ -58,7 +59,6 @@ void ax25_dev_device_up(struct net_device *dev)
> return;
> }
>
> - refcount_set(&ax25_dev->refcount, 1);
Let's keep this here, and just delete the ax25_dev_hold(). It makes
the diff smaller and I like setting the refcount earlier anyway.
> dev->ax25_ptr = ax25_dev;
Let's move this assignment under the spinlock where ax25_dev_hold() was.
> ax25_dev->dev = dev;
> netdev_hold(dev, &ax25_dev->dev_tracker, GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ void ax25_dev_device_up(struct net_device *dev)
> ax25_dev->next = ax25_dev_list;
> ax25_dev_list = ax25_dev;
> spin_unlock_bh(&ax25_dev_lock);
> - ax25_dev_hold(ax25_dev);
> + refcount_set(&ax25_dev->refcount, 1);
>
> ax25_register_dev_sysctl(ax25_dev);
> }
> @@ -135,7 +135,6 @@ void ax25_dev_device_down(struct net_device *dev)
>
> unlock_put:
> spin_unlock_bh(&ax25_dev_lock);
> - ax25_dev_put(ax25_dev);
> dev->ax25_ptr = NULL;
> netdev_put(dev, &ax25_dev->dev_tracker);
> ax25_dev_put(ax25_dev);
So far as I can see, the ax25_dev should be on the list. Also, I think
the dev->ax25_ptr = NULL; assignment should be under the lock. So this
code should just look like:
list_for_each_entry(s, &ax25_dev_list, list) {
if (s->forward == dev)
s->forward = NULL;
}
list_for_each_entry(s, &ax25_dev_list, list) {
if (s == ax25_dev) {
list_del(&s->list);
break;
}
}
dev->ax25_ptr = NULL;
spin_unlock_bh(&ax25_dev_lock);
netdev_put(dev, &ax25_dev->dev_tracker);
ax25_dev_put(ax25_dev);
}
Also it should just be on the list once... In fact, it's impossible for
one pointer to be on a list twice. So it would be nice to add a break;
in ax25_addr_ax25dev(). It doesn't change the code, it just makes it
more obvious.
ax25_dev *ax25_addr_ax25dev(ax25_address *addr)
{
ax25_dev *ax25_dev, *res = NULL;
spin_lock_bh(&ax25_dev_lock);
list_for_each_entry(ax25_dev, &ax25_dev_list, list) {
if (ax25cmp(addr, (const ax25_address *)ax25_dev->dev->dev_addr) == 0) {
res = ax25_dev;
ax25_dev_hold(res);
break;
}
}
spin_unlock_bh(&ax25_dev_lock);
return res;
}
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists