From: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
To: <lars.povlsen@microchip.com>, <Steen.Hegelund@microchip.com>,
<daniel.machon@microchip.com>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
<edumazet@google.com>, <kuba@kernel.org>, <pabeni@redhat.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>
Cc: <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
Subject: [PATCH net v2 2/5] net: microchip: sparx5: Fix memory leak for vcap_api_rule_add_actionvalue_test()
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2023 16:02:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230909080207.1174597-3-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230909080207.1174597-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
Inject fault while probing kunit-example-test.ko, the field which
is allocated by kzalloc in vcap_rule_add_action() of
vcap_rule_add_action_bit/u32() is not freed, and it cause
the memory leaks below.
unreferenced object 0xffff0276c496b300 (size 64):
comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 286, jiffies 4294894224 (age 920.072s)
hex dump (first 32 bytes):
68 3c 62 82 00 80 ff ff 68 3c 62 82 00 80 ff ff h<b.....h<b.....
3c 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 <...............
backtrace:
[<0000000028f08898>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0xb8/0x368
[<00000000514b9b37>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x174/0x290
[<000000004620684a>] kmalloc_trace+0x40/0x164
[<000000008b41c84d>] vcap_rule_add_action+0x104/0x178
[<00000000ae66c16c>] vcap_api_rule_add_actionvalue_test+0xa4/0x990
[<00000000fcc5326c>] kunit_try_run_case+0x50/0xac
[<00000000f5f45b20>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x20/0x2c
[<0000000026284079>] kthread+0x124/0x130
[<0000000024d4a996>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
unreferenced object 0xffff0276c496b2c0 (size 64):
comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 286, jiffies 4294894224 (age 920.072s)
hex dump (first 32 bytes):
68 3c 62 82 00 80 ff ff 68 3c 62 82 00 80 ff ff h<b.....h<b.....
3c 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 <...............
backtrace:
[<0000000028f08898>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0xb8/0x368
[<00000000514b9b37>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x174/0x290
[<000000004620684a>] kmalloc_trace+0x40/0x164
[<000000008b41c84d>] vcap_rule_add_action+0x104/0x178
[<00000000607782aa>] vcap_api_rule_add_actionvalue_test+0x100/0x990
[<00000000fcc5326c>] kunit_try_run_case+0x50/0xac
[<00000000f5f45b20>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x20/0x2c
[<0000000026284079>] kthread+0x124/0x130
[<0000000024d4a996>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
unreferenced object 0xffff0276c496b280 (size 64):
comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 286, jiffies 4294894224 (age 920.072s)
hex dump (first 32 bytes):
68 3c 62 82 00 80 ff ff 68 3c 62 82 00 80 ff ff h<b.....h<b.....
3c 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 <...............
backtrace:
[<0000000028f08898>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0xb8/0x368
[<00000000514b9b37>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x174/0x290
[<000000004620684a>] kmalloc_trace+0x40/0x164
[<000000008b41c84d>] vcap_rule_add_action+0x104/0x178
[<000000004e640602>] vcap_api_rule_add_actionvalue_test+0x15c/0x990
[<00000000fcc5326c>] kunit_try_run_case+0x50/0xac
[<00000000f5f45b20>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x20/0x2c
[<0000000026284079>] kthread+0x124/0x130
[<0000000024d4a996>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
unreferenced object 0xffff0276c496b240 (size 64):
comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 286, jiffies 4294894224 (age 920.092s)
hex dump (first 32 bytes):
68 3c 62 82 00 80 ff ff 68 3c 62 82 00 80 ff ff h<b.....h<b.....
5a 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 32 54 76 98 00 00 00 00 Z.......2Tv.....
backtrace:
[<0000000028f08898>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0xb8/0x368
[<00000000514b9b37>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x174/0x290
[<000000004620684a>] kmalloc_trace+0x40/0x164
[<000000008b41c84d>] vcap_rule_add_action+0x104/0x178
[<0000000011141bf8>] vcap_api_rule_add_actionvalue_test+0x1bc/0x990
[<00000000fcc5326c>] kunit_try_run_case+0x50/0xac
[<00000000f5f45b20>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x20/0x2c
[<0000000026284079>] kthread+0x124/0x130
[<0000000024d4a996>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
unreferenced object 0xffff0276c496b200 (size 64):
comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 286, jiffies 4294894224 (age 920.092s)
hex dump (first 32 bytes):
68 3c 62 82 00 80 ff ff 68 3c 62 82 00 80 ff ff h<b.....h<b.....
28 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 dd cc bb aa 00 00 00 00 (...............
backtrace:
[<0000000028f08898>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0xb8/0x368
[<00000000514b9b37>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x174/0x290
[<000000004620684a>] kmalloc_trace+0x40/0x164
[<000000008b41c84d>] vcap_rule_add_action+0x104/0x178
[<00000000d5ed3088>] vcap_api_rule_add_actionvalue_test+0x22c/0x990
[<00000000fcc5326c>] kunit_try_run_case+0x50/0xac
[<00000000f5f45b20>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x20/0x2c
[<0000000026284079>] kthread+0x124/0x130
[<0000000024d4a996>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
Fixes: c956b9b318d9 ("net: microchip: sparx5: Adding KUNIT tests of key/action values in VCAP API")
Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
---
v2:
- Fix it to adhere to 80 character limit.
---
.../net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c
index 2fb0b8cf2b0c..f268383a7570 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap/vcap_api_kunit.c
@@ -1095,6 +1095,17 @@ static void vcap_api_rule_add_keyvalue_test(struct kunit *test)
vcap_free_ckf(rule);
}
+static void vcap_free_caf(struct vcap_rule *rule)
+{
+ struct vcap_client_actionfield *caf, *next_caf;
+
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(caf, next_caf,
+ &rule->actionfields, ctrl.list) {
+ list_del(&caf->ctrl.list);
+ kfree(caf);
+ }
+}
+
static void vcap_api_rule_add_actionvalue_test(struct kunit *test)
{
struct vcap_admin admin = {
@@ -1120,6 +1131,7 @@ static void vcap_api_rule_add_actionvalue_test(struct kunit *test)
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, VCAP_AF_POLICE_ENA, af->ctrl.action);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, VCAP_FIELD_BIT, af->ctrl.type);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0x0, af->data.u1.value);
+ vcap_free_caf(rule);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rule->actionfields);
ret = vcap_rule_add_action_bit(rule, VCAP_AF_POLICE_ENA, VCAP_BIT_1);
@@ -1131,6 +1143,7 @@ static void vcap_api_rule_add_actionvalue_test(struct kunit *test)
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, VCAP_AF_POLICE_ENA, af->ctrl.action);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, VCAP_FIELD_BIT, af->ctrl.type);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0x1, af->data.u1.value);
+ vcap_free_caf(rule);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rule->actionfields);
ret = vcap_rule_add_action_bit(rule, VCAP_AF_POLICE_ENA, VCAP_BIT_ANY);
@@ -1142,6 +1155,7 @@ static void vcap_api_rule_add_actionvalue_test(struct kunit *test)
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, VCAP_AF_POLICE_ENA, af->ctrl.action);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, VCAP_FIELD_BIT, af->ctrl.type);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0x0, af->data.u1.value);
+ vcap_free_caf(rule);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rule->actionfields);
ret = vcap_rule_add_action_u32(rule, VCAP_AF_TYPE, 0x98765432);
@@ -1153,6 +1167,7 @@ static void vcap_api_rule_add_actionvalue_test(struct kunit *test)
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, VCAP_AF_TYPE, af->ctrl.action);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, VCAP_FIELD_U32, af->ctrl.type);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0x98765432, af->data.u32.value);
+ vcap_free_caf(rule);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rule->actionfields);
ret = vcap_rule_add_action_u32(rule, VCAP_AF_MASK_MODE, 0xaabbccdd);
@@ -1164,6 +1179,7 @@ static void vcap_api_rule_add_actionvalue_test(struct kunit *test)
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, VCAP_AF_MASK_MODE, af->ctrl.action);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, VCAP_FIELD_U32, af->ctrl.type);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0xaabbccdd, af->data.u32.value);
+ vcap_free_caf(rule);
}
static void vcap_api_rule_find_keyset_basic_test(struct kunit *test)
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-09 8:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-09 8:02 [PATCH net v2 0/5] net: microchip: sparx5: Fix some memory leaks in vcap_api_kunit Jinjie Ruan
2023-09-09 8:02 ` [PATCH net v2 1/5] net: microchip: sparx5: Fix memory leak for vcap_api_rule_add_keyvalue_test() Jinjie Ruan
2023-09-09 8:02 ` Jinjie Ruan [this message]
2023-09-09 8:02 ` [PATCH net v2 3/5] net: microchip: sparx5: Fix possible memory leak in vcap_api_encode_rule_test() Jinjie Ruan
2023-09-12 7:38 ` Paolo Abeni
2023-09-12 8:10 ` Ruan Jinjie
2023-09-09 8:02 ` [PATCH net v2 4/5] net: microchip: sparx5: Fix possible memory leaks in test_vcap_xn_rule_creator() Jinjie Ruan
2023-09-12 7:41 ` Paolo Abeni
2023-09-12 8:10 ` Ruan Jinjie
2023-09-09 8:02 ` [PATCH net v2 5/5] net: microchip: sparx5: Fix possible memory leaks in vcap_api_kunit Jinjie Ruan
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=20230909080207.1174597-3-ruanjinjie@huawei.com \
--to=ruanjinjie@huawei.com \
--cc=Steen.Hegelund@microchip.com \
--cc=UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com \
--cc=daniel.machon@microchip.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=lars.povlsen@microchip.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).