re: GTP: add support for flow based tunneling API

[Colin Ian King]

Hi,

Static analysis of today's linux-next using Coverity has found a
potential memory leak issue in the following commit:

commit 9ab7e76aefc97a9aa664accb59d6e8dc5e52514a
Author: Pravin B Shelar <pbshelar@xxxxxx>
Date:   Sat Jan 9 23:00:21 2021 -0800

    GTP: add support for flow based tunneling API

The analysis is as follows:

186 static int gtp_set_tun_dst(struct gtp_dev *gtp, struct sk_buff *skb,
187                           unsigned int hdrlen, u8 gtp_version,
188                           __be64 tid, u8 flags)
189 {
190        struct metadata_dst *tun_dst;
191        int opts_len = 0;
192

   1. Condition !!(flags & 7), taking true branch.
   2. Condition !!(flags & 7), taking true branch.

193        if (unlikely(flags & GTP1_F_MASK))
194                opts_len = sizeof(struct gtpu_metadata);
195

   3. alloc_fn: Storage is returned from allocation function udp_tun_rx_dst.
   4. var_assign: Assigning: tun_dst = storage returned from
udp_tun_rx_dst(skb, gtp->sk1u->__sk_common.skc_family, 1024, tid, opts_len).

196        tun_dst = udp_tun_rx_dst(skb, gtp->sk1u->sk_family,
TUNNEL_KEY, tid, opts_len);

   5. Condition !tun_dst, taking false branch.

197        if (!tun_dst) {
198                netdev_dbg(gtp->dev, "Failed to allocate tun_dst");
199                goto err;
200        }
201

   6. Condition 0 /* __builtin_types_compatible_p() */, taking false branch.
   7. Condition 1 /* __builtin_types_compatible_p() */, taking true branch.
   8. Falling through to end of if statement.
   9. Condition !!branch, taking false branch.
   10. Condition ({...; !!branch;}), taking false branch.

202        netdev_dbg(gtp->dev, "attaching metadata_dst to skb, gtp ver
%d hdrlen %d\n",
203                   gtp_version, hdrlen);

   11. Condition !!opts_len, taking true branch.
   12. Condition !!opts_len, taking true branch.

204        if (unlikely(opts_len)) {
205                struct gtpu_metadata *opts;
206                struct gtp1_header *gtp1;
207
208                opts = ip_tunnel_info_opts(&tun_dst->u.tun_info);
209                gtp1 = (struct gtp1_header *)(skb->data +
sizeof(struct udphdr));
210                opts->ver = GTP_METADATA_V1;
211                opts->flags = gtp1->flags;
212                opts->type = gtp1->type;

   13. Condition 0 /* __builtin_types_compatible_p() */, taking false
branch.
   14. Condition 1 /* __builtin_types_compatible_p() */, taking true branch.
   15. Falling through to end of if statement.
   16. Condition !!branch, taking false branch.
   17. Condition ({...; !!branch;}), taking false branch.

213                netdev_dbg(gtp->dev, "recved control pkt: flag %x
type: %d\n",
214                           opts->flags, opts->type);
215                tun_dst->u.tun_info.key.tun_flags |= TUNNEL_GTPU_OPT;
216                tun_dst->u.tun_info.options_len = opts_len;
217                skb->protocol = htons(0xffff);         /* Unknown */
218        }
219        /* Get rid of the GTP + UDP headers. */

   18. Condition !net_eq(sock_net(gtp->sk1u), dev_net(gtp->dev)), taking
false branch.
   19. Condition !net_eq(sock_net(gtp->sk1u), dev_net(gtp->dev)), taking
false branch.
   20. Condition iptunnel_pull_header(skb, hdrlen, skb->protocol,
!net_eq(sock_net(gtp->sk1u), dev_net(gtp->dev))), taking true branch.

220        if (iptunnel_pull_header(skb, hdrlen, skb->protocol,
221                                 !net_eq(sock_net(gtp->sk1u),
dev_net(gtp->dev)))) {
222                gtp->dev->stats.rx_length_errors++;

   21. Jumping to label err.

223                goto err;
224        }
225
226        skb_dst_set(skb, &tun_dst->dst);
227        return 0;
228 err:

   Resource leak (RESOURCE_LEAK)
   22. leaked_storage: Variable tun_dst going out of scope leaks the
storage it points to.

229        return -1;
230 }

The goto on line 223 is leaking tun_dst.  From what I can see, I believe
a call to kfree(tun_dst) before the goto on line 223 looks like a
pertinent fix, but I'm not 100% sure, so I'm flagging this up as an
issue that need further investigation by folk who are more familiar with
this code.

Colin