[PATCH] net/ice: fix unchecked Tx time context allocation

[PATCH] net/ice: fix unchecked Tx time context allocation

[Anurag Mandal]

ice_tx_queue_start() dereferences the Tx time queue
context buffer returned by ice_malloc() without
NULL check.
On allocation failure, the E830 send-on-timestamp path
therefore crashes instead of reporting "No Memory" error,
and also the already allocated txq_elem buffer gets leaked.

Added the necessary allocation failure check and freed
txq_elem buffer in case of failure to avoid the memory leak.

Fixes: 0b6ff09a1f19 ("net/intel: support Tx packet pacing for E830")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Anurag Mandal <anurag.mandal@intel.com>
---
 drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
index b333444cbf..873aca0100 100644
--- a/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
@@ -898,6 +898,10 @@ ice_tx_queue_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint16_t tx_queue_id)
 		u8 ts_buf_len = ice_struct_size(ts_elem, txtimeqs, 1);
 
 		ts_elem = ice_malloc(hw, ts_buf_len);
+		if (!ts_elem) {
+			rte_free(txq_elem);
+			return -ENOMEM;
+		}
 		ice_setup_txtime_ctx(txq, &txtime_ctx, true);
 		ice_set_ctx(hw, (u8 *)&txtime_ctx,
 				ts_elem->txtimeqs[0].txtime_ctx,
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] net/ice: fix unchecked Tx time context allocation

[Burakov, Anatoly]

On 10/2/2026 4:19 AM, Anurag Mandal wrote:
> ice_tx_queue_start() dereferences the Tx time queue
> context buffer returned by ice_malloc() without
> NULL check.
> On allocation failure, the E830 send-on-timestamp path
> therefore crashes instead of reporting "No Memory" error,
> and also the already allocated txq_elem buffer gets leaked.
> 
> Added the necessary allocation failure check and freed
> txq_elem buffer in case of failure to avoid the memory leak.
> 
> Fixes: 0b6ff09a1f19 ("net/intel: support Tx packet pacing for E830")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anurag Mandal <anurag.mandal@intel.com>
> ---
>   drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c | 4 ++++
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> index b333444cbf..873aca0100 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> @@ -898,6 +898,10 @@ ice_tx_queue_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, uint16_t tx_queue_id)
>   		u8 ts_buf_len = ice_struct_size(ts_elem, txtimeqs, 1);
>   
>   		ts_elem = ice_malloc(hw, ts_buf_len);
> +		if (!ts_elem) {
> +			rte_free(txq_elem);
> +			return -ENOMEM;
> +		}
>   		ice_setup_txtime_ctx(txq, &txtime_ctx, true);
>   		ice_set_ctx(hw, (u8 *)&txtime_ctx,
>   				ts_elem->txtimeqs[0].txtime_ctx,

I don't particularly like the fact that we're allocating using 
`ice_malloc` but freeing using `rte_free`. This works only accidentally 
(because `ice_malloc` resolves to `rte_malloc`).

Not a blocker for this patch, as this is following established 
convention in this function, but IMO this code could benefit from a 
separate patch replacing direct `rte_free` calls with `ice_free`.

Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly

RE: [PATCH] net/ice: fix unchecked Tx time context allocation

[Mandal, Anurag]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
> Sent: 06 October 2026 15:33
> To: Mandal, Anurag <anurag.mandal@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ice: fix unchecked Tx time context allocation
> 
> On 10/2/2026 4:19 AM, Anurag Mandal wrote:
> > ice_tx_queue_start() dereferences the Tx time queue context buffer
> > returned by ice_malloc() without NULL check.
> > On allocation failure, the E830 send-on-timestamp path therefore
> > crashes instead of reporting "No Memory" error, and also the already
> > allocated txq_elem buffer gets leaked.
> >
> > Added the necessary allocation failure check and freed txq_elem buffer
> > in case of failure to avoid the memory leak.
> >
> > Fixes: 0b6ff09a1f19 ("net/intel: support Tx packet pacing for E830")
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Anurag Mandal <anurag.mandal@intel.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c | 4 ++++
> >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> > b/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> > index b333444cbf..873aca0100 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> > @@ -898,6 +898,10 @@ ice_tx_queue_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> uint16_t tx_queue_id)
> >   		u8 ts_buf_len = ice_struct_size(ts_elem, txtimeqs, 1);
> >
> >   		ts_elem = ice_malloc(hw, ts_buf_len);
> > +		if (!ts_elem) {
> > +			rte_free(txq_elem);
> > +			return -ENOMEM;
> > +		}
> >   		ice_setup_txtime_ctx(txq, &txtime_ctx, true);
> >   		ice_set_ctx(hw, (u8 *)&txtime_ctx,
> >   				ts_elem->txtimeqs[0].txtime_ctx,
> 
> I don't particularly like the fact that we're allocating using `ice_malloc` but
> freeing using `rte_free`. This works only accidentally (because `ice_malloc`
> resolves to `rte_malloc`).
> 
> Not a blocker for this patch, as this is following established convention in this
> function, but IMO this code could benefit from a separate patch replacing
> direct `rte_free` calls with `ice_free`.
> 
> Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
> 

I will be sending a separate patch to change replacing direct `rte_free` calls with `ice_free`for buffers allocated via 'ice_malloc'

> --
> Thanks,
> Anatoly

Re: [PATCH] net/ice: fix unchecked Tx time context allocation

[Bruce Richardson]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 11:36:54AM +0100, Mandal, Anurag wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
> > Sent: 06 October 2026 15:33
> > To: Mandal, Anurag <anurag.mandal@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ice: fix unchecked Tx time context allocation
> > 
> > On 10/2/2026 4:19 AM, Anurag Mandal wrote:
> > > ice_tx_queue_start() dereferences the Tx time queue context buffer
> > > returned by ice_malloc() without NULL check.
> > > On allocation failure, the E830 send-on-timestamp path therefore
> > > crashes instead of reporting "No Memory" error, and also the already
> > > allocated txq_elem buffer gets leaked.
> > >
> > > Added the necessary allocation failure check and freed txq_elem buffer
> > > in case of failure to avoid the memory leak.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 0b6ff09a1f19 ("net/intel: support Tx packet pacing for E830")
> > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Anurag Mandal <anurag.mandal@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c | 4 ++++
> > >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> > > b/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> > > index b333444cbf..873aca0100 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> > > @@ -898,6 +898,10 @@ ice_tx_queue_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> > uint16_t tx_queue_id)
> > >   		u8 ts_buf_len = ice_struct_size(ts_elem, txtimeqs, 1);
> > >
> > >   		ts_elem = ice_malloc(hw, ts_buf_len);
> > > +		if (!ts_elem) {
> > > +			rte_free(txq_elem);
> > > +			return -ENOMEM;
> > > +		}
> > >   		ice_setup_txtime_ctx(txq, &txtime_ctx, true);
> > >   		ice_set_ctx(hw, (u8 *)&txtime_ctx,
> > >   				ts_elem->txtimeqs[0].txtime_ctx,
> > 
> > I don't particularly like the fact that we're allocating using `ice_malloc` but
> > freeing using `rte_free`. This works only accidentally (because `ice_malloc`
> > resolves to `rte_malloc`).
> > 
> > Not a blocker for this patch, as this is following established convention in this
> > function, but IMO this code could benefit from a separate patch replacing
> > direct `rte_free` calls with `ice_free`.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
> > 
> 
> I will be sending a separate patch to change replacing direct `rte_free` calls with `ice_free`for buffers allocated via 'ice_malloc'
> 
That would be great. I think I'd prefer to take that patch first, so can
you put it in a 2-patch set with this one (reworked to use ice_free)?