netdev - Re: [PATCH] [v2] net/mlx5e: fix a double-free in arfs_create

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <74def06a.828f1.18cfca212e2.Coremail.alexious@zju.edu.cn>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:45:29 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
From: alexious@....edu.cn
To: "Simon Horman" <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: "Saeed Mahameed" <saeedm@...dia.com>, 
	"Leon Romanovsky" <leon@...nel.org>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	"Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	"Maor Gottlieb" <maorg@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] net/mlx5e: fix a double-free in arfs_create_groups


> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 09:23:24PM +0800, alexious@....edu.cn wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 11:26:04PM +0800, Zhipeng Lu wrote:
> > > > When `in` allocated by kvzalloc fails, arfs_create_groups will free
> > > > ft->g and return an error. However, arfs_create_table, the only caller of
> > > > arfs_create_groups, will hold this error and call to
> > > > mlx5e_destroy_flow_table, in which the ft->g will be freed again.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: 1cabe6b0965e ("net/mlx5e: Create aRFS flow tables")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zhipeng Lu <alexious@....edu.cn>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> > > 
> > > When working on netdev (and probably elsewhere)
> > > Please don't include Reviewed-by or other tags
> > > that were explicitly supplied by someone: I don't recall
> > > supplying the tag above so please drop it.
> > 
> > I apologize, but it appears that you included a "reviewed-by" 
> > tag along with certain suggestions for version 1 of this patch 
> > in the first review email(about 6 days before). 
> 
> Yes, sorry. My statement above is not correct:
> I now see that I did supply the tag.

Never mind, you did give a lot of constructive suggestion proberly to every patch.
Forgetting about a tag, well, it can't be helped.

> > In response, after a short discussion, I followed some of 
> > those suggestions and send this v2 patch.
> > I referred to the "Dealing with tags" section in this KernelNewbies 
> > tips: https://kernelnewbies.org/PatchTipsAndTricks and thought 
> > that I should include that tag in v1 email to this v2 patch.
> > So now I'm a little bit confused here: if the tag rule has changed 
> > or I got some misunderstanding on existing rules? Your clarification 
> > on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
> 

...

> 
> Right, I think it would be best to focus on fixing arfs_create_groups().
> And making sure that neither leaks nor double frees occur. And I think
> that at this point that includes ensuring ft->g is NULL if it has been freed.

A v3 version of this patch was sent just now, which is focusing on arfs_create_groups itself.
Have a nice day!