[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87o6n42mfs.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2026 15:44:55 +0100
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>, Alexei Starovoitov
<ast@...nel.org>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Lorenzo
Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Network
Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: fix reference count leak in bpf_prog_test_run_xdp()
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> writes:
> On 2026/01/08 23:01, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Hmm, this will end up call bpf_ctx_finish() in the error path, which I'm
>> not sure we want?
>
> Excuse me, but I don't think bpf_ctx_finish() will be called, for
>
> +out_put_dev:
> /* We convert the xdp_buff back to an xdp_md before checking the return
> * code so the reference count of any held netdevice will be decremented
> * even if the test run failed.
> */
> xdp_convert_buff_to_md(&xdp, ctx);
> if (ret) // <== ret was set to non-0 value immediately before the "goto out_put_dev;" line.
> goto out;
Oh, right; I think my brain just pattern matched on "if (ret) right
after a function call" and assumed there was an assignment to ret there
as well :D
Okay, not the clearest code flow, but not sure there's a good way to
make it clearer without quite a bit of refactoring.
>
> size = xdp.data_end - xdp.data_meta + sinfo->xdp_frags_size;
> ret = bpf_test_finish(kattr, uattr, xdp.data_meta, sinfo, size, sinfo->xdp_frags_size,
> retval, duration);
> if (!ret)
> ret = bpf_ctx_finish(kattr, uattr, ctx,
> sizeof(struct xdp_md));
>
>>
>> Could we just move the xdp_convert_md_to_buff() call to after the frags
>> have been copied? Not sure there's technically any dependency there,
>> even though it does look a little off?
>
> Unless
>
> xdp_md->data = xdp->data - xdp->data_meta;
> xdp_md->data_end = xdp->data_end - xdp->data_meta;
>
> in xdp_convert_buff_to_md() lines do something bad for the error path,
> I think this change will be safe.
Yeah, sure, this should be fine.
Reviewed-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists