From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "open list:VIRTIO CORE,
NET..." <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] virtio: don't free memory until the underlying struct device has been released
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 13:26:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150104112641.GB4336@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1420228060-18721-2-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com>
On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 02:47:40PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> When releasing a virtio device, We can't free a struct virtio_device until the
> underlying struct device has been released, which might not happen immediately
> on device_unregister() even if that was the device's last reference.
>
> Instead, free the memory only once we know the device is gone in the release
> callback.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Isn't this an old bug: do we need to copy stable on a fix?
What is the behaviour without this patch?
Is there a way to make this cause a crash?
> ---
> drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c | 9 ++++-----
> drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_legacy.c | 1 -
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> index 59d3685..caa483d 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> @@ -423,11 +423,10 @@ int vp_set_vq_affinity(struct virtqueue *vq, int cpu)
>
> void virtio_pci_release_dev(struct device *_d)
> {
> - /*
> - * No need for a release method as we allocate/free
> - * all devices together with the pci devices.
> - * Provide an empty one to avoid getting a warning from core.
> - */
> + struct virtio_device *vdev = dev_to_virtio(_d);
> + struct virtio_pci_device *vp_dev = to_vp_device(vdev);
> +
> + kfree(vp_dev);
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_legacy.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_legacy.c
> index 913ca23..15e6e6d 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_legacy.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_legacy.c
> @@ -301,5 +301,4 @@ void virtio_pci_legacy_remove(struct pci_dev *pci_dev)
> pci_iounmap(pci_dev, vp_dev->ioaddr);
> pci_release_regions(pci_dev);
> pci_disable_device(pci_dev);
> - kfree(vp_dev);
> }
It seems inelegant to free a structure allocated in another file:
I think we should move this function to virtio_pci_legacy.
Will send a patch in a minute.
> --
> 1.7.10.4
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
"open list:VIRTIO CORE,
NET..." <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] virtio: don't free memory until the underlying struct device has been released
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 13:26:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150104112641.GB4336@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1420228060-18721-2-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com>
On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 02:47:40PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> When releasing a virtio device, We can't free a struct virtio_device until the
> underlying struct device has been released, which might not happen immediately
> on device_unregister() even if that was the device's last reference.
>
> Instead, free the memory only once we know the device is gone in the release
> callback.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Isn't this an old bug: do we need to copy stable on a fix?
What is the behaviour without this patch?
Is there a way to make this cause a crash?
> ---
> drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c | 9 ++++-----
> drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_legacy.c | 1 -
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> index 59d3685..caa483d 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
> @@ -423,11 +423,10 @@ int vp_set_vq_affinity(struct virtqueue *vq, int cpu)
>
> void virtio_pci_release_dev(struct device *_d)
> {
> - /*
> - * No need for a release method as we allocate/free
> - * all devices together with the pci devices.
> - * Provide an empty one to avoid getting a warning from core.
> - */
> + struct virtio_device *vdev = dev_to_virtio(_d);
> + struct virtio_pci_device *vp_dev = to_vp_device(vdev);
> +
> + kfree(vp_dev);
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_legacy.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_legacy.c
> index 913ca23..15e6e6d 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_legacy.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_legacy.c
> @@ -301,5 +301,4 @@ void virtio_pci_legacy_remove(struct pci_dev *pci_dev)
> pci_iounmap(pci_dev, vp_dev->ioaddr);
> pci_release_regions(pci_dev);
> pci_disable_device(pci_dev);
> - kfree(vp_dev);
> }
It seems inelegant to free a structure allocated in another file:
I think we should move this function to virtio_pci_legacy.
Will send a patch in a minute.
> --
> 1.7.10.4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-04 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-02 19:47 [PATCH 1/2] virtio_pci: double free and invalid memory access of device vqs Sasha Levin
2015-01-02 19:47 ` Sasha Levin
2015-01-02 19:47 ` [PATCH 2/2] virtio: don't free memory until the underlying struct device has been released Sasha Levin
2015-01-02 19:47 ` Sasha Levin
2015-01-04 11:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2015-01-04 11:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2015-01-04 15:03 ` Sasha Levin
2015-01-04 15:03 ` Sasha Levin
2015-01-04 15:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2015-01-04 15:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2015-01-04 11:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] virtio_pci: double free and invalid memory access of device vqs Michael S. Tsirkin
2015-01-04 11:12 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150104112641.GB4336@redhat.com \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.