* [Patch net] net_sched: fix a memory leak of filter chain
@ 2017-09-06 5:03 Cong Wang
2017-09-06 7:38 ` Jiri Pirko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Cong Wang @ 2017-09-06 5:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev; +Cc: jakub.kicinski, Cong Wang, Jiri Pirko
tcf_chain_destroy() is called by tcf_block_put() and tcf_chain_put().
tcf_chain_put() is refcn'ed and paired with tcf_chain_get(),
but tcf_block_put() is not, it should be paired with tcf_block_get()
and we still need to decrease the refcnt. However, tcf_block_put()
is special, it stores the chains too, we have to detach them if
it is not the last user.
What's more, index 0 is not special at all, it should be treated
like other chains. This also makes the code more readable.
Fixes: 744a4cf63e52 ("net: sched: fix use after free when tcf_chain_destroy is called multiple times")
Reported-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>
Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
---
net/sched/cls_api.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/sched/cls_api.c b/net/sched/cls_api.c
index 6c5ea84d2682..c6d25b29bcd4 100644
--- a/net/sched/cls_api.c
+++ b/net/sched/cls_api.c
@@ -213,17 +213,17 @@ static void tcf_chain_flush(struct tcf_chain *chain)
}
}
-static void tcf_chain_destroy(struct tcf_chain *chain)
+static void tcf_chain_detach(struct tcf_chain *chain)
{
/* May be already removed from the list by the previous call. */
if (!list_empty(&chain->list))
list_del_init(&chain->list);
+}
- /* There might still be a reference held when we got here from
- * tcf_block_put. Wait for the user to drop reference before free.
- */
- if (!chain->refcnt)
- kfree(chain);
+static void tcf_chain_destroy(struct tcf_chain *chain)
+{
+ tcf_chain_detach(chain);
+ kfree(chain);
}
struct tcf_chain *tcf_chain_get(struct tcf_block *block, u32 chain_index,
@@ -246,10 +246,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_chain_get);
void tcf_chain_put(struct tcf_chain *chain)
{
- /* Destroy unused chain, with exception of chain 0, which is the
- * default one and has to be always present.
- */
- if (--chain->refcnt == 0 && !chain->filter_chain && chain->index != 0)
+ if (--chain->refcnt == 0)
tcf_chain_destroy(chain);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_chain_put);
@@ -296,8 +293,11 @@ void tcf_block_put(struct tcf_block *block)
list_for_each_entry_safe(chain, tmp, &block->chain_list, list) {
tcf_chain_flush(chain);
- tcf_chain_destroy(chain);
+ tcf_chain_put(chain);
}
+ /* If tc actions still hold the chain, just detach it. */
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(chain, tmp, &block->chain_list, list)
+ tcf_chain_detach(chain);
kfree(block);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_block_put);
--
2.13.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [Patch net] net_sched: fix a memory leak of filter chain
2017-09-06 5:03 [Patch net] net_sched: fix a memory leak of filter chain Cong Wang
@ 2017-09-06 7:38 ` Jiri Pirko
2017-09-06 17:25 ` Cong Wang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Pirko @ 2017-09-06 7:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cong Wang; +Cc: netdev, jakub.kicinski, Jiri Pirko
Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 07:03:10AM CEST, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com wrote:
>tcf_chain_destroy() is called by tcf_block_put() and tcf_chain_put().
>tcf_chain_put() is refcn'ed and paired with tcf_chain_get(),
>but tcf_block_put() is not, it should be paired with tcf_block_get()
>and we still need to decrease the refcnt. However, tcf_block_put()
>is special, it stores the chains too, we have to detach them if
>it is not the last user.
You don't describe the original issue, or I am missing that from your
description.
>
>What's more, index 0 is not special at all, it should be treated
>like other chains. This also makes the code more readable.
[...]
>@@ -246,10 +246,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_chain_get);
>
> void tcf_chain_put(struct tcf_chain *chain)
> {
>- /* Destroy unused chain, with exception of chain 0, which is the
>- * default one and has to be always present.
>- */
>- if (--chain->refcnt == 0 && !chain->filter_chain && chain->index != 0)
>+ if (--chain->refcnt == 0)
The refcounting is only done for actions holding reference to the chain.
You still need to check is the filter chain is not empty.
See tc_ctl_tfilter.
Also, chain 0 is created by default on a block creation. It has to be
present always for a reason. Please see tcf_block_get. The pointer to
chain 0 is assigned to the qdisc filter list pointer.
> tcf_chain_destroy(chain);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_chain_put);
>@@ -296,8 +293,11 @@ void tcf_block_put(struct tcf_block *block)
>
> list_for_each_entry_safe(chain, tmp, &block->chain_list, list) {
> tcf_chain_flush(chain);
>- tcf_chain_destroy(chain);
>+ tcf_chain_put(chain);
> }
>+ /* If tc actions still hold the chain, just detach it. */
>+ list_for_each_entry_safe(chain, tmp, &block->chain_list, list)
>+ tcf_chain_detach(chain);
> kfree(block);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_block_put);
>--
>2.13.0
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [Patch net] net_sched: fix a memory leak of filter chain
2017-09-06 7:38 ` Jiri Pirko
@ 2017-09-06 17:25 ` Cong Wang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Cong Wang @ 2017-09-06 17:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Pirko; +Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers, Jakub Kicinski, Jiri Pirko
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
> Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 07:03:10AM CEST, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com wrote:
>>tcf_chain_destroy() is called by tcf_block_put() and tcf_chain_put().
>>tcf_chain_put() is refcn'ed and paired with tcf_chain_get(),
>>but tcf_block_put() is not, it should be paired with tcf_block_get()
>>and we still need to decrease the refcnt. However, tcf_block_put()
>>is special, it stores the chains too, we have to detach them if
>>it is not the last user.
>
> You don't describe the original issue, or I am missing that from your
> description.
The original issue is the mismatch of tcf_block_put() and tcf_block_get()
w.r.t. refcnt. Think it in this way: if you call tcf_bock_put() immediately
after tcf_block_get(), would you get effectively a nop?
>
>
>>
>>What's more, index 0 is not special at all, it should be treated
>>like other chains. This also makes the code more readable.
>
> [...]
>
>
>>@@ -246,10 +246,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_chain_get);
>>
>> void tcf_chain_put(struct tcf_chain *chain)
>> {
>>- /* Destroy unused chain, with exception of chain 0, which is the
>>- * default one and has to be always present.
>>- */
>>- if (--chain->refcnt == 0 && !chain->filter_chain && chain->index != 0)
>>+ if (--chain->refcnt == 0)
>
> The refcounting is only done for actions holding reference to the chain.
> You still need to check is the filter chain is not empty.
> See tc_ctl_tfilter.
With my patch refcnt is done for block too, if you notice the
tcf_chain_put() in tcf_block_put().
>
> Also, chain 0 is created by default on a block creation. It has to be
> present always for a reason. Please see tcf_block_get. The pointer to
> chain 0 is assigned to the qdisc filter list pointer.
Sure, this is why block holds a refcnt to chain (not just chain 0) with
my patch, aka why the initial refcnt is 1 rather than 0.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-09-06 17:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-09-06 5:03 [Patch net] net_sched: fix a memory leak of filter chain Cong Wang
2017-09-06 7:38 ` Jiri Pirko
2017-09-06 17:25 ` Cong Wang
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).