netdev - Re: [PATCH net] rhashtable: fix a memory leak in alloc_bucket

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: <CAM_iQpVLCqapbA-Z04gk+t+n7+GyHL7gKuOjusNQYJs4kYyfpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:19:02 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, CAI Qian <caiqian@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] rhashtable: fix a memory leak in alloc_bucket_locks()

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>
> If vmalloc() was successful, do not attempt a kmalloc_array()
>
> Fixes: 4cf0b354d92e ("rhashtable: avoid large lock-array allocations")
> Reported-by: CAI Qian <caiqian@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
> ---
>  lib/rhashtable.c |    7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/rhashtable.c b/lib/rhashtable.c
> index 5ba520b544d7..56054e541a0f 100644
> --- a/lib/rhashtable.c
> +++ b/lib/rhashtable.c
> @@ -77,17 +77,18 @@ static int alloc_bucket_locks(struct rhashtable *ht, struct bucket_table *tbl,
>         size = min_t(unsigned int, size, tbl->size >> 1);
>
>         if (sizeof(spinlock_t) != 0) {
> +               tbl->locks = NULL;
>  #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
>                 if (size * sizeof(spinlock_t) > PAGE_SIZE &&
>                     gfp == GFP_KERNEL)
>                         tbl->locks = vmalloc(size * sizeof(spinlock_t));
> -               else
>  #endif

Not directly for your patch, but why did we have this CONFIG_NUMA
for vmalloc()? I think this macro is the real cause of the bug. :-P