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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <5c60024b-5797-429f-bc0b-72ef58cd2253@windriver.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 10:19:19 +0800
From: Xiaolei Wang <xiaolei.wang@...driver.com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc: andersson@...nel.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 4/29/25 00:49, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account!
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
> Hi Xiaolei,
>
> 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
>>
>> 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;
>> +}
>> +
> I have reflected long and hard on this.  The problem with the above approach is
> that we do almost the same thing in imx_rproc_prepare() and
> rproc_resource_cleanup().  Function rproc_resource_cleanup() is able to deal
> with empty lists so I think it is better to fix the "goto" statements in
> rproc_attach().  More specifically, replace the "unprepare_device" goto
> statement with "clean_up_resources" and get rid of the "unprepare_device" label.
>
> Please see if that works on your side.  I am good with 2/2 of this series.
Thanks to Mathieu for the suggestion, I will try this approach,

and also thanks to Peng for the more detailed explanation

thanks

xiaolei

>
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
>
>>   static int imx_rproc_parse_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>>   {
>>        int ret;
>> @@ -675,6 +688,7 @@ imx_rproc_elf_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *
>>
>>   static const struct rproc_ops imx_rproc_ops = {
>>        .prepare        = imx_rproc_prepare,
>> +     .unprepare      = imx_rproc_unprepare,
>>        .attach         = imx_rproc_attach,
>>        .detach         = imx_rproc_detach,
>>        .start          = imx_rproc_start,
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>