Re: [PATCH] virtio_ring: Fix mem leak with vring_new_virtqueue()

[Suman Anna]

On 2/25/20 9:13 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2020/2/26 äå12:51, Suman Anna wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> On 2/24/20 11:39 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> On 2020/2/25 äå5:26, Suman Anna wrote:
>>>> The functions vring_new_virtqueue() and __vring_new_virtqueue() are
>>>> used
>>>> with split rings, and any allocations within these functions are
>>>> managed
>>>> outside of the .we_own_ring flag. The commit cbeedb72b97a
>>>> ("virtio_ring:
>>>> allocate desc state for split ring separately") allocates the desc
>>>> state
>>>> within the __vring_new_virtqueue() but frees it only when the
>>>> .we_own_ring
>>>> flag is set. This leads to a memory leak when freeing such allocated
>>>> virtqueues with the vring_del_virtqueue() function.
>>>>
>>>> Fix this by moving the desc_state free code outside the flag and only
>>>> for split rings. Issue was discovered during testing with remoteproc
>>>> and virtio_rpmsg.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: cbeedb72b97a ("virtio_ring: allocate desc state for split ring
>>>> separately")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna<s-anna@xxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> ÂÂ drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 4 ++--
>>>> ÂÂ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
>>>> b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
>>>> index 867c7ebd3f10..58b96baa8d48 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
>>>> @@ -2203,10 +2203,10 @@ void vring_del_virtqueue(struct virtqueue *_vq)
>>>> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ vq->split.queue_size_in_bytes,
>>>> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ vq->split.vring.desc,
>>>> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ vq->split.queue_dma_addr);
>>>> -
>>>> -ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ kfree(vq->split.desc_state);
>>>> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ }
>>>> ÂÂÂÂÂÂ }
>>>> +ÂÂÂ if (!vq->packed_ring)
>>>> +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ kfree(vq->split.desc_state);
>>> Nitpick, it looks to me it would be more clear if we just free
>>> desc_state unconditionally here (and remove the kfree for packed above).
>> OK, are you sure you want that to be folded into this patch? It looks to
>> me a separate cleanup/consolidation patch, and packed desc_state does
>> not suffer this memleak, and need not be backported into stable kernels.
>>
>> regards
>> Suman
> 
> 
> Though it's just a small tweak, I'm fine for leaving it for future.
> 
> So
> 
> Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks Jason, will post a patch for the same once this is merged.

regards
Suman