[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170207194508.GD3414@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:45:09 -0200
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
vyasevich@...il.com, nhorman@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: avoid list_del_init if it's freeing the
memory right away
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:21:21PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:03:21 -0200
>
> > There is no reason to use list_del_init() in these places as we are
> > going to free/destroy the memory in a few lines below.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
> > ---
> > net/sctp/associola.c | 14 ++++----------
> > net/sctp/auth.c | 8 ++------
> > net/sctp/chunk.c | 4 ++--
> > net/sctp/outqueue.c | 14 +++++++-------
> > net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c | 3 +--
> > 5 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/sctp/associola.c b/net/sctp/associola.c
> > index e50dc6d7543fd6acfa7442f3a9ee575203c7718d..7eb9dacfa53a438b20a34319cf01c6c9a591f0c3 100644
> > --- a/net/sctp/associola.c
> > +++ b/net/sctp/associola.c
> > @@ -1638,25 +1638,19 @@ int sctp_assoc_set_id(struct sctp_association *asoc, gfp_t gfp)
> > static void sctp_assoc_free_asconf_queue(struct sctp_association *asoc)
> > {
> > struct sctp_chunk *asconf;
> > - struct sctp_chunk *tmp;
> >
> > - list_for_each_entry_safe(asconf, tmp, &asoc->addip_chunk_list, list) {
> > - list_del_init(&asconf->list);
> > + list_for_each_entry(asconf, &asoc->addip_chunk_list, list)
> > sctp_chunk_free(asconf);
> > - }
> > }
>
> This leave freed memory on the asoc->addip_chunk_list, in fact why aren't you seeing
This should be alright, because here we are purging the entire list and
the asoc will also be free right after.
> the BUG_ON() in sctp_chunk_destroy() get triggered? If you elide the list_del() here
> then the "list_empty(&chunk->list)" check there will not be true.
>
Good question. I have to double check this, but you're probably right.
> I don't think this transformation here is legal at all.
I removed the BUG_ON check on sctp_auth_shkey_free() for the same
reason, not sure why not for sctp_chunk_destroy().
Marcelo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists