Re: [PATCH 2/2] netfilter: revert "conntrack: silent a memory leak warning"

["Maciej Żenczykowski" <zenczykowski@gmail.com>]

Please think both these patches through.
I'm not going to claim I'm 100% certain of their correctness.

I'm confused by:
  include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack.h:65:
  * beware nf_ct_get() is different and don't inc refcnt.

and maybe there's some subtlety to this krealloc+rcu+kmemleak thing I'm missing.

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:35 PM Maciej Żenczykowski
<zenczykowski@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@google.com>
>
> This reverts commit 114aa35d06d4920c537b72f9fa935de5dd205260.
>
> By my understanding of kmemleak the reasoning for this patch
> is incorrect.  If kmemleak couldn't handle rcu we'd have it
> reporting leaks all over the place.  My belief is that this
> was instead papering over a real leak.
>
> Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
> Signed-off-by: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@google.com>
> ---
>  net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c
> index d4ed1e197921..fb208877338a 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c
> @@ -68,7 +68,6 @@ void *nf_ct_ext_add(struct nf_conn *ct, enum nf_ct_ext_id id, gfp_t gfp)
>         rcu_read_unlock();
>
>         alloc = max(newlen, NF_CT_EXT_PREALLOC);
> -       kmemleak_not_leak(old);
>         new = __krealloc(old, alloc, gfp);
>         if (!new)
>                 return NULL;
> --
> 2.23.0.581.g78d2f28ef7-goog
>