[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250602145240.1868958-1-joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 07:52:39 -0700
From: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com>
To: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@...com>
Subject: Re: mm/mempolicy.c:3719:1-6: ERROR: invalid free of structure field
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 15:01:08 +0900 Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2025 at 01:34:46PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > cocci warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
> > >> mm/mempolicy.c:3719:1-6: ERROR: invalid free of structure field
> >
> > vim +3719 mm/mempolicy.c
> >
> > 3700
> > 3701 static void wi_state_free(void)
> > 3702 {
> > 3703 struct weighted_interleave_state *old_wi_state;
> > 3704
> > 3705 mutex_lock(&wi_state_lock);
> > 3706
> > 3707 old_wi_state = rcu_dereference_protected(wi_state,
> > 3708 lockdep_is_held(&wi_state_lock));
> > 3709 if (!old_wi_state) {
> > 3710 mutex_unlock(&wi_state_lock);
> > 3711 goto out;
> > 3712 }
> > 3713
> > 3714 rcu_assign_pointer(wi_state, NULL);
> > 3715 mutex_unlock(&wi_state_lock);
> > 3716 synchronize_rcu();
> > 3717 kfree(old_wi_state);
> > 3718 out:
> > > 3719 kfree(&wi_group->wi_kobj);
>
> Hmm maybe Joshua meant kfree(wi_group)?
>
> Anyway, practically it's the same as kfree(wi_group) and something strange
> is happening there.
>
> in add_weighted_interleave_group() (the only caller of wi_cleanup()),
> kobject_del() and kobject_put() are called after wi_cleanup() freed
> wi_group in the error path.
Hi Harry,
Thanks for your suggestion and insight! This is totally a slip-up on my end.
I completely missed the kobject_{put, delete} that gets called immediately
after this, which is embarrassing because rebasing on top of Rakie's patch
(which introduces those proper freeing calls) was the main focus of this v8.
>From what I can tell, I think the solution here is to just remove the goto
statement entirely. There is no need to free the wi_group here, and it
would also be bad practice to do more than the function name suggests anyways.
Let me send a patch that gets rid of the goto statement, and just returns if
there is no old_wi_state. While I'm at it, I'll send in a patch from
David Hildenbrand that is an optimization in this area.
Thanks again for taking a look Harry, hope you have a great day!
Joshua
>
> > 3720 }
> > 3721
> >
> > --
> > 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Harry / Hyeonggon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists