Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2022 18:44:42 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc:     Hawkins Jiawei <yin31149@gmail.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, 18801353760@163.com,
        syzbot+232ebdbd36706c965ebf@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@bytedance.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: sched: fix memory leak in tcindex_set_parms
Message-ID: <20221115184442.272b6ea8@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <bc4616002932b25973533c39c07f48ea57afa3dc.camel@redhat.com>
References: <20221113170507.8205-1-yin31149@gmail.com>
        <20221115090237.5d5988bb@kernel.org>
        <bc4616002932b25973533c39c07f48ea57afa3dc.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 19:57:10 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> This code confuses me more than a bit, and I don't follow ?!?=20

It's very confusing :S

For starters I don't know when r !=3D old_r. I mean now it triggers
randomly after the RCU-ification, but in the original code when
it was just a memset(). When would old_r ever not be null and yet
point to a different entry?

> it looks like that at this point:
>=20
> * the data path could access 'old_r->exts' contents via 'p' just before
> the previous 'tcindex_filter_result_init(old_r, cp, net);' but still
> potentially within the same RCU grace period
>=20
> * 'tcindex_filter_result_init(old_r, cp, net);' has 'unlinked' the old
> exts from 'p'  so that will not be freed by later
> tcindex_partial_destroy_work()=C2=A0
>=20
> Overall it looks to me that we need some somewhat wait for the RCU
> grace period,=20

Isn't it better to make @cp a deeper copy of @p ?
I thought it already is but we don't seem to be cloning p->h.
Also the cloning of p->perfect looks quite lossy.

> Somewhat side question: it looks like that the 'perfect hashing' usage
> is the root cause of the issue addressed here, and very likely is
> afflicted by other problems, e.g. the data curruption in 'err =3D
> tcindex_filter_result_init(old_r, cp, net);'.
>=20
> AFAICS 'perfect hashing' usage is a sort of optimization that the user-
> space may trigger with some combination of the tcindex arguments. I'm
> wondering if we could drop all perfect hashing related code?

The thought of "how much of this can we delete" did cross my mind :)