linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] remoteproc: imx_rproc: release carveout under imx_rproc after rproc

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20250426131804.GA13806@nxa18884-linux>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 21:18:04 +0800
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
To: Xiaolei Wang <xiaolei.wang@...driver.com>
Cc: andersson@...nel.org, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, shawnguo@...nel.org,
	s.hauer@...gutronix.de, kernel@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com,
	linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] remoteproc: imx_rproc: release carveout under
 imx_rproc after rproc_attach() fails

On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 02:53:47PM +0800, Xiaolei Wang wrote:
>When rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED and rproc_attach() is used
>to attach to the remote processor, if rproc_handle_resources()
>returns a failure, the resources allocated by rproc_prepare_device()
>should be released, otherwise the following memory leak will occur.
>
>Therefore, add imx_rproc_unprepare() to imx_rproc to release the
>memory allocated in imx_rproc_prepare().
>
>unreferenced object 0xffff0000861c5d00 (size 128):
>comm "kworker/u12:3", pid 59, jiffies 4294893509 (age 149.220s)
>hex dump (first 32 bytes):
>00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>00 00 02 88 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 ............
>backtrace:
> [<00000000f949fe18>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0x98/0x37c
> [<00000000adbfb3e7>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x138/0x2e0
> [<00000000521c0345>] kmalloc_trace+0x40/0x158
> [<000000004e330a49>] rproc_mem_entry_init+0x60/0xf8
> [<000000002815755e>] imx_rproc_prepare+0xe0/0x180
> [<0000000003f61b4e>] rproc_boot+0x2ec/0x528
> [<00000000e7e994ac>] rproc_add+0x124/0x17c
> [<0000000048594076>] imx_rproc_probe+0x4ec/0x5d4
> [<00000000efc298a1>] platform_probe+0x68/0xd8
> [<00000000110be6fe>] really_probe+0x110/0x27c
> [<00000000e245c0ae>] __driver_probe_device+0x78/0x12c
> [<00000000f61f6f5e>] driver_probe_device+0x3c/0x118
> [<00000000a7874938>] __device_attach_driver+0xb8/0xf8
> [<0000000065319e69>] bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xe4
> [<00000000db3eb243>] __device_attach+0xfc/0x18c
> [<0000000072e4e1a4>] device_initial_probe+0x14/0x20
>

Fix Tag?

>Signed-off-by: Xiaolei Wang <xiaolei.wang@...driver.com>
>---
> drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
>index 74299af1d7f1..c489bd15ee91 100644
>--- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
>+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
>@@ -595,6 +595,19 @@ static int imx_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
> 	return  0;
> }
> 
>+static int imx_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc)
>+{
>+	struct rproc_mem_entry *entry, *tmp;
>+
>+	rproc_coredump_cleanup(rproc);
>+	/* clean up carveout allocations */
>+	list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &rproc->carveouts, node) {
>+		list_del(&entry->node);
>+		kfree(entry);
>+	}
>+	return  0;

Could "rproc_resource_cleanup(rproc);" be used here?

Regards,
Peng