Re: [PATCH V2] i40iw: Do not set self-referencing pointer to NULL after kfree

Shiraz Saleem
2016-08-24T16:51:27Z

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:03:47AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 03:05:42PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > On 8/23/2016 3:00 PM, Shiraz Saleem wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 09:46:23PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:51:10PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > >>> On 8/23/2016 12:00 PM, Shiraz Saleem wrote:
> > >>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 04:41:35AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > >>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 07:01:47PM -0500, Shiraz Saleem wrote:
> > >>>>>> From: Mustafa Ismail <mustafa.ismail-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In i40iw_free_virt_mem(), do not set mem->va to NULL
> > >>>>>> after freeing it as mem->va is a self-referencing pointer
> > >>>>>> to mem.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sorry, I failed to understand your commit message and your change.
> > >>>>> What did you mean? How do you suppose to use mem->va pointer
> > >>>>> after kfree() call on that pointer? Won't you have use-after-free bug in
> > >>>>> such case?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The pointer mem->va cannot be used after kfree. But setting it to
> > >>>> NULL would be writing to freed memory. In i40iw_puda_alloc_buf(),
> > >>>> when a buffer is allocated of type struct i40iw_puda_buf, the address
> > >>>> of the buffer itself is stored within the structure (in member buf_mem).
> > >>>> When this pointer is freed, the structure containing the pointer is freed,
> > >>>> so writing to the structure would be writing to freed memory, which is
> > >>>> what this fix is for.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Fixes: 4e9042e647ff ("i40iw: add hw and utils files")
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Reported-by: Stefan Assmann <sassmann-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mustafa Ismail <mustafa.ismail-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> V2: Fix typo in subject line.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_utils.c | 1 -
> > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_utils.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_utils.c
> > >>>>>> index 0e8db0a..d5f5de2 100644
> > >>>>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_utils.c
> > >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_utils.c
> > >>>>>> @@ -674,7 +674,6 @@ enum i40iw_status_code i40iw_free_virt_mem(struct i40iw_hw *hw,
> > >>>>>> if (!mem)
> > >>>>>> return I40IW_ERR_PARAM;
> > >>>>>> kfree(mem->va);
> > >>>>>> - mem->va = NULL;
> > >>>>>> return 0;
> > >>>
> > >>> Your commit message is a bit hard to follow, but if I follow the
> > >>> conversation, kfree(mem->va) is the same as kfree(mem), is it not? If
> > >>> it is, couldn't you just kfree(mem)? That would avoid the confusion
> > >>> here. Also, if it matters, you can use a temporary pointer, aka:
> > >>>
> > >>> p = mem->va;
> > >>> mem->va = NULL;
> > >>> kfree(p);
> > >>>
> > >>> but, again, if mem->va is just a self-referencing pointer back to mem,
> > >>> then why not just kfree(mem)? I'm concerned that this convoluted way of
> > >>> doing things will come back to haunt us later when people think they are
> > >>> submitting a fix and simply reintroduce the same bug again.
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, I totally agree with you.
> > >>
> > >
> > > OK, I see the the possible confusion of the commit message.
> > >
> > > Maybe the following is clearer:
> > > "In i40iw_free_virt_mem(), do not set mem->va to NULL after freeing it, as mem->va is a pointer
> > > to the structure containing mem"
> > >
> > > So kfree(mem->va) is not the same as kfree(mem).
> >
> > That makes more sense. I still think things are a bit convoluted here,
> > and maybe even a code comment is in order. I'll probably change it up a
> > little bit as I pull it in.
>
> I would like to see code snippet of such struct and/or code which is
> depend on it.
>

static struct i40iw_puda_buf *i40iw_puda_alloc_buf(struct i40iw_sc_dev *dev,
u32 length)
{
------>struct i40iw_puda_buf *buf = NULL;
------>struct i40iw_virt_mem buf_mem;
enum i40iw_status_code ret;

------->ret = i40iw_allocate_virt_mem(dev->hw, &buf_mem,
sizeof(struct i40iw_puda_buf));
if (ret) {
i40iw_debug(dev, I40IW_DEBUG_PUDA,
"%s: error mem for buf\n", __func__);
return NULL;
}
-------->buf = (struct i40iw_puda_buf *)buf_mem.va;
ret = i40iw_allocate_dma_mem(dev->hw, &buf->mem, length, 1);
if (ret) {
i40iw_debug(dev, I40IW_DEBUG_PUDA,
"%s: error dma mem for buf\n", __func__);
i40iw_free_virt_mem(dev->hw, &buf_mem);
return NULL;
}
-------->buf->buf_mem.va = buf_mem.va;
buf->buf_mem.size = buf_mem.size;
return buf;
}
}

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html