From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: fix reference count leak in bpf_prog_test_run_xdp()
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2026 15:44:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o6n42mfs.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1db0fa14-af3b-47e6-93dc-0adffaa3d934@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> writes:
> On 2026/01/08 23:01, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Hmm, this will end up call bpf_ctx_finish() in the error path, which I'm
>> not sure we want?
>
> Excuse me, but I don't think bpf_ctx_finish() will be called, for
>
> +out_put_dev:
> /* We convert the xdp_buff back to an xdp_md before checking the return
> * code so the reference count of any held netdevice will be decremented
> * even if the test run failed.
> */
> xdp_convert_buff_to_md(&xdp, ctx);
> if (ret) // <== ret was set to non-0 value immediately before the "goto out_put_dev;" line.
> goto out;
Oh, right; I think my brain just pattern matched on "if (ret) right
after a function call" and assumed there was an assignment to ret there
as well :D
Okay, not the clearest code flow, but not sure there's a good way to
make it clearer without quite a bit of refactoring.
>
> size = xdp.data_end - xdp.data_meta + sinfo->xdp_frags_size;
> ret = bpf_test_finish(kattr, uattr, xdp.data_meta, sinfo, size, sinfo->xdp_frags_size,
> retval, duration);
> if (!ret)
> ret = bpf_ctx_finish(kattr, uattr, ctx,
> sizeof(struct xdp_md));
>
>>
>> Could we just move the xdp_convert_md_to_buff() call to after the frags
>> have been copied? Not sure there's technically any dependency there,
>> even though it does look a little off?
>
> Unless
>
> xdp_md->data = xdp->data - xdp->data_meta;
> xdp_md->data_end = xdp->data_end - xdp->data_meta;
>
> in xdp_convert_buff_to_md() lines do something bad for the error path,
> I think this change will be safe.
Yeah, sure, this should be fine.
Reviewed-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-08 14:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-08 12:36 [PATCH] bpf: fix reference count leak in bpf_prog_test_run_xdp() Tetsuo Handa
2026-01-08 14:01 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2026-01-08 14:18 ` Tetsuo Handa
2026-01-08 14:44 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2026-01-13 2:25 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=87o6n42mfs.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=lorenzo@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
/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