netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 08/10] net: openvswitch: fix possible memleak on destroy flow-table

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: <CAOrHB_DdMX7sZkk79esdZkmb8RGaX_XiMAxhGz1LgWx50eFD9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Oct 2019 23:57:46 -0700
From:   Pravin Shelar <pshelar@....org>
To:     Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
Cc:     Greg Rose <gvrose8192@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        ovs dev <dev@...nvswitch.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 08/10] net: openvswitch: fix possible memleak
 on destroy flow-table

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:02 PM Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 2:12 AM Pravin Shelar <pshelar@....org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:16 PM Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 6:38 AM Pravin Shelar <pshelar@....org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:50 AM <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > When we destroy the flow tables which may contain the flow_mask,
> > > > > so release the flow mask struct.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
> > > > > Tested-by: Greg Rose <gvrose8192@...il.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  net/openvswitch/flow_table.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c b/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c
> > > > > index 5df5182..d5d768e 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c
> > > > > @@ -295,6 +295,18 @@ static void table_instance_destroy(struct table_instance *ti,
> > > > >         }
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static void tbl_mask_array_destroy(struct flow_table *tbl)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +       struct mask_array *ma = ovsl_dereference(tbl->mask_array);
> > > > > +       int i;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       /* Free the flow-mask and kfree_rcu the NULL is allowed. */
> > > > > +       for (i = 0; i < ma->max; i++)
> > > > > +               kfree_rcu(rcu_dereference_raw(ma->masks[i]), rcu);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       kfree_rcu(rcu_dereference_raw(tbl->mask_array), rcu);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > >  /* No need for locking this function is called from RCU callback or
> > > > >   * error path.
> > > > >   */
> > > > > @@ -304,7 +316,7 @@ void ovs_flow_tbl_destroy(struct flow_table *table)
> > > > >         struct table_instance *ufid_ti = rcu_dereference_raw(table->ufid_ti);
> > > > >
> > > > >         free_percpu(table->mask_cache);
> > > > > -       kfree_rcu(rcu_dereference_raw(table->mask_array), rcu);
> > > > > +       tbl_mask_array_destroy(table);
> > > > >         table_instance_destroy(ti, ufid_ti, false);
> > > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > This should not be required. mask is linked to a flow and gets
> > > > released when flow is removed.
> > > > Does the memory leak occur when OVS module is abruptly unloaded and
> > > > userspace does not cleanup flow table?
> > > When we destroy the ovs datapath or net namespace is destroyed , the
> > > mask memory will be happened. The call tree:
> > > ovs_exit_net/ovs_dp_cmd_del
> > > -->__dp_destroy
> > > -->destroy_dp_rcu
> > > -->ovs_flow_tbl_destroy
> > > -->table_instance_destroy (which don't release the mask memory because
> > > don't call the ovs_flow_tbl_remove /flow_mask_remove directly or
> > > indirectly).
> > >
> > Thats what I suggested earlier, we need to call function similar to
> > ovs_flow_tbl_remove(), we could refactor code to use the code.
> > This is better since by introducing tbl_mask_array_destroy() is
> > creating a dangling pointer to mask in sw-flow object. OVS is anyway
> > iterating entire flow table to release sw-flow in
> > table_instance_destroy(), it is natural to release mask at that point
> > after releasing corresponding sw-flow.
> I got it, thanks. I rewrite the codes, can you help me to review it.
> If fine, I will sent it next version.
> >
> >
Sure, I can review it, Can you send the patch inlined in mail?

Thanks.