[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <516ED91E.1030103@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:17:18 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
CC: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/9] net: sctp: sctp_ssnmap: remove 'malloced'
element from struct
On 04/17/2013 02:52 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 04/17/2013 02:45 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:07:10PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> sctp_ssnmap_init() can only be called from sctp_ssnmap_new()
>>> where malloced is always set to 1. Thus, when we call
>>> sctp_ssnmap_free() the test for map->malloced evaluates always
>>> to true.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/net/sctp/structs.h | 1 -
>>> net/sctp/ssnmap.c | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
>>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/net/sctp/structs.h b/include/net/sctp/structs.h
>>> index e12aa77..3c1bb8d 100644
>>> --- a/include/net/sctp/structs.h
>>> +++ b/include/net/sctp/structs.h
>>> @@ -399,7 +399,6 @@ struct sctp_stream {
>>> struct sctp_ssnmap {
>>> struct sctp_stream in;
>>> struct sctp_stream out;
>>> - int malloced;
>>> };
>>>
>>> struct sctp_ssnmap *sctp_ssnmap_new(__u16 in, __u16 out,
>>> diff --git a/net/sctp/ssnmap.c b/net/sctp/ssnmap.c
>>> index 825ea94..da86035 100644
>>> --- a/net/sctp/ssnmap.c
>>> +++ b/net/sctp/ssnmap.c
>>> @@ -74,7 +74,6 @@ struct sctp_ssnmap *sctp_ssnmap_new(__u16 in, __u16 out,
>>> if (!sctp_ssnmap_init(retval, in, out))
>>> goto fail_map;
>>>
>>> - retval->malloced = 1;
>>> SCTP_DBG_OBJCNT_INC(ssnmap);
>>>
>>> return retval;
>>> @@ -118,14 +117,16 @@ void sctp_ssnmap_clear(struct sctp_ssnmap *map)
>>> /* Dispose of a ssnmap. */
>>> void sctp_ssnmap_free(struct sctp_ssnmap *map)
>>> {
>>> - if (map && map->malloced) {
>>> - int size;
>>> -
>>> - size = sctp_ssnmap_size(map->in.len, map->out.len);
>>> - if (size <= KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE)
>>> - kfree(map);
>>> - else
>>> - free_pages((unsigned long)map, get_order(size));
>>> - SCTP_DBG_OBJCNT_DEC(ssnmap);
>>> - }
>>> + int size;
>>> +
>>> + if (unlikely(!map))
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + size = sctp_ssnmap_size(map->in.len, map->out.len);
>>> + if (size <= KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE)
>>> + kfree(map);
>>> + else
>>> + free_pages((unsigned long)map, get_order(size));
>>> +
>>> + SCTP_DBG_OBJCNT_DEC(ssnmap);
>>> }
>>> --
>>> 1.7.11.7
>>>
>> I definately like what you're doing here, as the use of the ->malloced member
>> always struck me as a half-assed way to try and avoid a double free that someone
>> couldn't track down during this code's initial development. That said, I'm
>> wondering if the !map check is going to fail at some point, given that the call
>> site for sctp_ssnmap_free never sets asoc->ssnmap to NULL after its call. Maybe
>> worthwhile adding such a NULL assoginment to the call site to ensure that we
>> don't accidentally trigger a double free?
>
> I'll test that with lksctp-tools suite and come back to you today.
Just did that.
I've poisoned the pointers, so that they would throw a WARN_ON() if they have
already been seen. Also, I've put a WARN_ON() before sctp_ssnmap_new() in
sctp_process_init(), in case asoc->ssnmap was not NULL. I've run the lksctp-tools
suite for v4/v6 and nothing was thrown, also it all passed.
That said, I think that the !map check is there because we init the asoc first
with a NULL ssnmap. I suggest, if Dave wants to and if there are no other
objections, that we could apply to net-next the patches ...
* [1/9] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/237101/
* [2/9] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/237102/
* [3/9] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/237103/
* [5/9] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/237105/
* [6/9] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/237109/
* [7/9] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/237106/
* [8/9] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/237107/
... as is. I've just tested it, they apply cleanly on top of each other without
the missing. Alternatively, I could resend the set without the two that we cut
out (nr 4 and 9). How you prefer, let me know.
For the remaining two, I think it needs some further analysis, thus I'd say that
we could leave it as is for now and address this at a later point in time.
Thanks,
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists