[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230910132130.GA775887@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 15:21:30 +0200
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: microchip: vcap api: Fix possible memory leak
for vcap_dup_rule()
On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 10:03:58PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> Inject fault When select CONFIG_VCAP_KUNIT_TEST, the below memory leak
> occurs. If kzalloc() for duprule succeeds, but the following
> kmemdup() fails, the duprule, ckf and caf memory will be leaked. So kfree
> them in the error path.
>
> unreferenced object 0xffff122744c50600 (size 192):
> comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 346, jiffies 4294896122 (age 911.812s)
> hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> 10 27 00 00 04 00 00 00 1e 00 00 00 2c 01 00 00 .'..........,...
> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 18 06 c5 44 27 12 ff ff ...........D'...
> backtrace:
> [<00000000394b0db8>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x274/0x2f8
> [<0000000001bedc67>] kmalloc_trace+0x38/0x88
> [<00000000b0612f98>] vcap_dup_rule+0x50/0x460
> [<000000005d2d3aca>] vcap_add_rule+0x8cc/0x1038
> [<00000000eef9d0f8>] test_vcap_xn_rule_creator.constprop.0.isra.0+0x238/0x494
> [<00000000cbda607b>] vcap_api_rule_remove_in_front_test+0x1ac/0x698
> [<00000000c8766299>] kunit_try_run_case+0xe0/0x20c
> [<00000000c4fe9186>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x50/0x94
> [<00000000f6864acf>] kthread+0x2e8/0x374
> [<0000000022e639b3>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>
> Fixes: 814e7693207f ("net: microchip: vcap api: Add a storage state to a VCAP rule")
> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c
> index 300fe1a93dce..ef980e4e5bc2 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api.c
> @@ -1021,18 +1021,32 @@ static struct vcap_rule_internal *vcap_dup_rule(struct vcap_rule_internal *ri,
> list_for_each_entry(ckf, &ri->data.keyfields, ctrl.list) {
> newckf = kmemdup(ckf, sizeof(*newckf), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!newckf)
> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> + goto err;
> list_add_tail(&newckf->ctrl.list, &duprule->data.keyfields);
> }
>
> list_for_each_entry(caf, &ri->data.actionfields, ctrl.list) {
> newcaf = kmemdup(caf, sizeof(*newcaf), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!newcaf)
> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> + goto err;
> list_add_tail(&newcaf->ctrl.list, &duprule->data.actionfields);
> }
>
> return duprule;
> +
> +err:
Hi Jinjie Ruan,
I think it would be slightly more idiomatic, and in keeping with the
prevailing style of this file to call the label out_free. But I don't feel
strongly about that. And clearly it would have no effect on the logic.
That not withstanding, this looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(ckf, newckf, &duprule->data.keyfields, ctrl.list) {
> + list_del(&ckf->ctrl.list);
> + kfree(ckf);
> + }
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(caf, newcaf, &duprule->data.actionfields, ctrl.list) {
> + list_del(&caf->ctrl.list);
> + kfree(caf);
> + }
> +
> + kfree(duprule);
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> }
>
> static void vcap_apply_width(u8 *dst, int width, int bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists