netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/8] fwctl: Basic ioctl dispatch for the character device

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: <20240604165844.GM19897@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:58:44 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Itay Avraham <itayavr@...dia.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
	Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>,
	Aron Silverton <aron.silverton@...cle.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
	Leonid Bloch <lbloch@...dia.com>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] fwctl: Basic ioctl dispatch for the character device

On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 05:50:23PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:

> > > >   static int fwctl_fops_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> > > >   {
> > > >   	struct fwctl_device *fwctl =
> > > >   		container_of(inode->i_cdev, struct fwctl_device, cdev);
> > > > +	struct fwctl_uctx *uctx __free(kfree) = NULL;
> > > > +	int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	guard(rwsem_read)(&fwctl->registration_lock);
> > > > +	if (!fwctl->ops)
> > > > +		return -ENODEV;
> > > > +
> > > > +	uctx = kzalloc(fwctl->ops->uctx_size, GFP_KERNEL |  GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
> > > > +	if (!uctx)
> > > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > +	uctx->fwctl = fwctl;
> > > > +	ret = fwctl->ops->open_uctx(uctx);
> > > > +	if (ret)
> > > > +		return ret;  
> > > 
> > > When something is wrong, uctx is freed in "fwctl->ops->open_uctx(uctx);"?
> > > 
> > > If not, the allocated memory uctx leaks here.  
> > 
> > See how uctx is declared:
> > struct fwctl_uctx *uctx __free(kfree) = NULL;
> > 
> > It will be released automatically.
> > See include/linux/cleanup.h for more details.
> 
> I'm lazy so not finding the discussion now, but Linus has been pretty clear
> that he doesn't like this pattern because of possibility of additional cleanup
> magic getting introduced and then the cleanup happening in an order that
> causes problems. 

I saw that discussion, but I thought it was talking about the macro
behavior - ie guard() creates a variable hidden in the macro.

The point about order is interesting though - notice the above will
free the uctx after unlocking (which is the slightly more preferred
order here), but it is easy to imagine cases where that order would be
wrong.

> Preferred option is drag the declaration to where is initialized so break
> with our tradition of declarations all at the top
> 
> struct fwctl_uctx *uctx __free(kfree) =
> 	kzalloc(...);

I don't recall that dramatic conclusion in the discussion, but it does
make alot of sense to me.

Thanks,
Jason