[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 14:59:47 +0100
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] xdp: xdp_mem_allocator can be NULL in
trace_mem_connect().
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> writes:
> Since the commit mentioned below __xdp_reg_mem_model() can return a NULL
> pointer. This pointer is dereferenced in trace_mem_connect() which leads
> to segfault. It can be reproduced with enabled trace events during ifup.
>
> Only assign the arguments in the trace-event macro if `xa' is set.
> Otherwise set the parameters to 0.
>
> Fixes: 4a48ef70b93b8 ("xdp: Allow registering memory model without rxq reference")
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Hmm, so before the commit you mention, the tracepoint wasn't triggered
at all in the code path that now sets xdp_alloc is NULL. So I'm
wondering if we should just do the same here? Is the trace event useful
in all cases?
Alternatively, if we keep it, I think the mem.id and mem.type should be
available from rxq->mem, right?
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists