From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Guangshuo Li" <lgs201920130244@gmail.com>
Cc: Frank.Li@kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, vkoul@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: fsl-dpaa2-qdma: fix ppriv memory leaks
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2026 05:02:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260913050222.C621D1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260913045001.1126563-1-lgs201920130244@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 4 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Double free of DMA pools (`fd_pool`, `fl_pool`, `sdd_pool`) during driver removal if channels were previously used.
- [High] Incorrect teardown sequence in `dpaa2_qdma_remove()` destroys hardware state and channel resources before unregistering the DMA device.
- [High] Missing `tasklet_kill()` leads to Use-After-Free on the tasklet structures during driver removal.
- [High] Race condition in `dpaa2_qdma_remove()` leading to Use-After-Free in concurrent DPIO notifications.
--
commit 7bbc2b15c0a3c76af93c56c1e6c4036a65094cf2
Author: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@gmail.com>
dmaengine: fsl-dpaa2-qdma: fix ppriv memory leaks
dpaa2_qdma_setup() allocates priv->ppriv separately from priv, but the
allocation is not released on all teardown paths. This commit frees
priv->ppriv on setup failures and during driver removal.
> diff --git a/drivers/dma/fsl-dpaa2-qdma/dpaa2-qdma.c b/drivers/dma/fsl-dpaa2-qdma/dpaa2-qdma.c
> index bf771251264d9..0f0fe0291a06f 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma/fsl-dpaa2-qdma/dpaa2-qdma.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma/fsl-dpaa2-qdma/dpaa2-qdma.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -787,6 +790,7 @@ static void dpaa2_qdma_remove(struct fsl_mc_device *ls_dev)
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but is there a risk of a use-after-free
in the DPIO hardware notification callback during unbind?
Earlier in dpaa2_qdma_remove(), the DPIO store memory is freed:
dpaa2_dpmai_store_free(priv);
dpaa2_dpdmai_dpio_free(priv);
If a hardware notification triggers dpaa2_qdma_fqdan_cb() concurrently
between these two calls, it will heavily access the freed ppriv->store
memory. Should the DPIO service be deregistered before the memory it
depends on is destroyed?
> dpaa2_dpdmai_free_channels(dpaa2_qdma);
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but is it possible for
dpaa2_dpdmai_free_channels() to cause a double free of the DMA pools here?
When a client releases a DMA channel, dpaa2_qdma_free_chan_resources()
destroys the pools but leaves the pointers intact:
drivers/dma/fsl-dpaa2-qdma/dpaa2-qdma.c:dpaa2_qdma_free_chan_resources() {
...
dma_pool_destroy(dpaa2_chan->fd_pool);
dma_pool_destroy(dpaa2_chan->fl_pool);
dma_pool_destroy(dpaa2_chan->sdd_pool);
...
}
If the driver is later unbound, dpaa2_qdma_remove() unconditionally calls
dpaa2_dpdmai_free_channels(), which iterates over the channels and calls
dma_pool_destroy() on these same pointers again. Could this lead to a
panic or memory corruption in the SLUB allocator?
>
> dma_async_device_unregister(&dpaa2_qdma->dma_dev);
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does this teardown sequence destroy
hardware state and channel resources while the device is still exposed to
clients?
Because dma_async_device_unregister() is called after
dpaa2_dpdmai_free_channels(), the DMA device is still registered with the
DMA core during hardware teardown. Couldn't concurrent clients still submit
operations or request channels, attempting to access already-destroyed pools
or freed portals?
> + kfree(priv->ppriv);
> kfree(priv);
> kfree(dpaa2_qdma);
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does freeing dpaa2_qdma
here cause a use-after-free for pending tasklets?
The driver initializes a tasklet for each channel during setup:
drivers/dma/fsl-dpaa2-qdma/dpaa2-qdma.c:dpaa2_dpdmai_init_channels() {
...
vchan_init(&dpaa2_chan->vchan, &dpaa2_qdma->dma_dev);
...
}
During removal, kfree(dpaa2_qdma) frees the structure containing these
channels and their embedded tasklets, but tasklet_kill() is never called.
If a tasklet is scheduled when the module unbinds, could this lead to a
use-after-free when the pending tasklet executes?
> }
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260913045001.1126563-1-lgs201920130244@gmail.com?part=1
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-13 5:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-13 4:50 [PATCH] dmaengine: fsl-dpaa2-qdma: fix ppriv memory leaks Guangshuo Li
2026-09-13 5:02 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
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=20260913050222.C621D1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=Frank.Li@kernel.org \
--cc=dmaengine@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lgs201920130244@gmail.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=vkoul@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox