From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DAB8C33C9E for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 01:35:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55C612467D for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 01:35:38 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 55C612467D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:48062 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1irXar-0000Yk-IC for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 20:35:37 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42262) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1irXaC-0008MP-Em for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 20:34:57 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1irXa9-0007Qw-KE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 20:34:56 -0500 Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.35]:59966 helo=huawei.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1irXa9-0007OM-9W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 20:34:53 -0500 Received: from DGGEMS409-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.60]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1668C6D4435996E50868; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:34:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.184.39.213] (10.184.39.213) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:34:40 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost-vsock: delete vqs in vhost_vsock_unrealize to avoid memleaks To: Stefano Garzarella , Stefan Hajnoczi References: <20200114075229.40520-1-pannengyuan@huawei.com> <20200114164441.GG132666@stefanha-x1.localdomain> From: Pan Nengyuan Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:34:36 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.184.39.213] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 45.249.212.35 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: qemu devel list , Michael Tsirkin , zhanghailiang , Euler Robot Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 1/15/2020 12:59 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:45 PM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 03:52:29PM +0800, pannengyuan@huawei.com wrote: >>> From: Pan Nengyuan >>> >>> Receive/transmit/event vqs forgot to cleanup in vhost_vsock_unrealize. This >>> patch save receive/transmit vq pointer in realize() and cleanup vqs >>> through those vq pointers in unrealize(). The leak stack is as follow: >>> >>> Direct leak of 21504 byte(s) in 3 object(s) allocated from: >>> #0 0x7f86a1356970 (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xef970) ??:? >>> #1 0x7f86a09aa49d (/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x5249d) ??:? >>> #2 0x5604852f85ca (./x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64+0x2c3e5ca) /mnt/sdb/qemu/hw/virtio/virtio.c:2333 >>> #3 0x560485356208 (./x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64+0x2c9c208) /mnt/sdb/qemu/hw/virtio/vhost-vsock.c:339 >>> #4 0x560485305a17 (./x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64+0x2c4ba17) /mnt/sdb/qemu/hw/virtio/virtio.c:3531 >>> #5 0x5604858e6b65 (./x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64+0x322cb65) /mnt/sdb/qemu/hw/core/qdev.c:865 >>> #6 0x5604861e6c41 (./x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64+0x3b2cc41) /mnt/sdb/qemu/qom/object.c:2102 >>> >>> Reported-by: Euler Robot >>> Signed-off-by: Pan Nengyuan >>> --- >>> hw/virtio/vhost-vsock.c | 9 +++++++-- >>> include/hw/virtio/vhost-vsock.h | 2 ++ >>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-vsock.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-vsock.c >>> index f5744363a8..896c0174c1 100644 >>> --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-vsock.c >>> +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-vsock.c >>> @@ -335,8 +335,10 @@ static void vhost_vsock_device_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) >>> sizeof(struct virtio_vsock_config)); >>> >>> /* Receive and transmit queues belong to vhost */ >>> - virtio_add_queue(vdev, VHOST_VSOCK_QUEUE_SIZE, vhost_vsock_handle_output); >>> - virtio_add_queue(vdev, VHOST_VSOCK_QUEUE_SIZE, vhost_vsock_handle_output); >>> + vsock->recv_vq = virtio_add_queue(vdev, VHOST_VSOCK_QUEUE_SIZE, >>> + vhost_vsock_handle_output); >>> + vsock->trans_vq = virtio_add_queue(vdev, VHOST_VSOCK_QUEUE_SIZE, >>> + vhost_vsock_handle_output); >>> >>> /* The event queue belongs to QEMU */ >>> vsock->event_vq = virtio_add_queue(vdev, VHOST_VSOCK_QUEUE_SIZE, >>> @@ -378,6 +380,9 @@ static void vhost_vsock_device_unrealize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) >>> /* This will stop vhost backend if appropriate. */ >>> vhost_vsock_set_status(vdev, 0); >>> >>> + virtio_delete_queue(vsock->recv_vq); >>> + virtio_delete_queue(vsock->trans_vq); >>> + virtio_delete_queue(vsock->event_vq); >>> vhost_dev_cleanup(&vsock->vhost_dev); >>> virtio_cleanup(vdev); >>> } >> >> Please delete the virtqueues after vhost cleanup (the reverse >> initialization order). There is currently no reason why it has to be >> done in reverse initialization order, your patch should work too, but >> it's a good default for avoiding user-after-free bugs. >> > > Agree! > > Since we are here, should we delete the queues also in the error path > of vhost_vsock_device_realize()? Yes, I will change the cleanup order and aslo delete in the error path. Thanks. > > Thanks, > Stefano > > . >