Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-168596-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 14:04:26 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
Cc: linux-hams@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, kuba@kernel.org,
	edumazet@google.com, davem@davemloft.net, jreuter@yaina.de,
	lars@oddbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ax25: Fix refcount leak issues of ax25_dev
Message-ID: <808ad381-179c-4975-a3f5-1d7cad00320b@moroto.mountain>
References: <20240501060218.32898-1-duoming@zju.edu.cn>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240501060218.32898-1-duoming@zju.edu.cn>

On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 02:02:18PM +0800, Duoming Zhou wrote:
> @@ -58,7 +59,6 @@ void ax25_dev_device_up(struct net_device *dev)
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> -	refcount_set(&ax25_dev->refcount, 1);

Let's keep this here, and just delete the ax25_dev_hold().  It makes
the diff smaller and I like setting the refcount earlier anyway.

>  	dev->ax25_ptr     = ax25_dev;

Let's move this assignment under the spinlock where ax25_dev_hold() was.

>  	ax25_dev->dev     = dev;
>  	netdev_hold(dev, &ax25_dev->dev_tracker, GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ void ax25_dev_device_up(struct net_device *dev)
>  	ax25_dev->next = ax25_dev_list;
>  	ax25_dev_list  = ax25_dev;
>  	spin_unlock_bh(&ax25_dev_lock);
> -	ax25_dev_hold(ax25_dev);
> +	refcount_set(&ax25_dev->refcount, 1);
>  
>  	ax25_register_dev_sysctl(ax25_dev);
>  }
> @@ -135,7 +135,6 @@ void ax25_dev_device_down(struct net_device *dev)
>  
>  unlock_put:
>  	spin_unlock_bh(&ax25_dev_lock);
> -	ax25_dev_put(ax25_dev);
>  	dev->ax25_ptr = NULL;
>  	netdev_put(dev, &ax25_dev->dev_tracker);
>  	ax25_dev_put(ax25_dev);

So far as I can see, the ax25_dev should be on the list.  Also, I think
the dev->ax25_ptr = NULL; assignment should be under the lock.  So this
code should just look like:

        list_for_each_entry(s, &ax25_dev_list, list) {
                if (s->forward == dev)
                        s->forward = NULL;
        }

        list_for_each_entry(s, &ax25_dev_list, list) {
                if (s == ax25_dev) {
                        list_del(&s->list);
                        break;
                }
        }
        dev->ax25_ptr = NULL;
        spin_unlock_bh(&ax25_dev_lock);
        netdev_put(dev, &ax25_dev->dev_tracker);
        ax25_dev_put(ax25_dev);
}

Also it should just be on the list once...  In fact, it's impossible for
one pointer to be on a list twice.  So it would be nice to add a break;
in ax25_addr_ax25dev().  It doesn't change the code, it just makes it
more obvious.

ax25_dev *ax25_addr_ax25dev(ax25_address *addr)
{
        ax25_dev *ax25_dev, *res = NULL;

        spin_lock_bh(&ax25_dev_lock);
        list_for_each_entry(ax25_dev, &ax25_dev_list, list) {
                if (ax25cmp(addr, (const ax25_address *)ax25_dev->dev->dev_addr) == 0) {
                        res = ax25_dev;
			ax25_dev_hold(res);
                        break;
                }
        }
        spin_unlock_bh(&ax25_dev_lock);

        return res;
}

regards,
dan carpenter