diff mbox series

[net,v3] net: fix memory leak in register_netdevice() on error path

Message ID 20201201135457.3549435-1-yangyingliang@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State Rejected
Delegated to: Netdev Maintainers
Headers show
Series [net,v3] net: fix memory leak in register_netdevice() on error path | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/cover_letter success Link
netdev/fixes_present fail Series targets non-next tree, but doesn't contain any Fixes tags
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for net
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Link
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 10 this patch: 10
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/verify_fixes success Link
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 16 lines checked
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 10 this patch: 10
netdev/header_inline success Link
netdev/stable success Stable not CCed

Commit Message

Yang Yingliang Dec. 1, 2020, 1:54 p.m. UTC
I got a memleak report when doing fault-inject test:

unreferenced object 0xffff88810ace9000 (size 1024):
  comm "ip", pid 4622, jiffies 4295457037 (age 43.378s)
  hex dump (first 32 bytes):
    00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
    00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
  backtrace:
    [<00000000008abe41>] __kmalloc+0x10f/0x210
    [<000000005d3533a6>] veth_dev_init+0x140/0x310
    [<0000000088353c64>] register_netdevice+0x496/0x7a0
    [<000000001324d322>] veth_newlink+0x40b/0x960
    [<00000000d0799866>] __rtnl_newlink+0xd8c/0x1360
    [<00000000d616040a>] rtnl_newlink+0x6b/0xa0
    [<00000000e0a1600d>] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x3cc/0x9e0
    [<000000009eeff98b>] netlink_rcv_skb+0x130/0x3a0
    [<00000000500f8be1>] netlink_unicast+0x4da/0x700
    [<00000000666c03b3>] netlink_sendmsg+0x7fe/0xcb0
    [<0000000073b28103>] sock_sendmsg+0x143/0x180
    [<00000000ad746a30>] ____sys_sendmsg+0x677/0x810
    [<0000000087dd98e5>] ___sys_sendmsg+0x105/0x180
    [<00000000028dd365>] __sys_sendmsg+0xf0/0x1c0
    [<00000000a6bfbae6>] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
    [<00000000e00521b4>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9

It seems ifb and loopback may also hit the leak, so I try to fix this in
register_netdevice().

In common case, priv_destructor() will be called in netdev_run_todo()
after calling ndo_uninit() in rollback_registered(), on other error
path in register_netdevice(), ndo_uninit() and priv_destructor() are
called before register_netdevice() return, but in this case,
priv_destructor() will never be called, then it causes memory leak,
so we should call priv_destructor() here.

Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
---
v2 -> v3: In wireguard driver, priv_destructor() will call
free_netdev(), but it is assigned after register_netdevice(),
so it will not lead a double free, drop patch#1. Also I've
test wireguard device, it's no memory leak on this error path.
---
 net/core/dev.c | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

Comments

Jakub Kicinski Dec. 3, 2020, 12:37 a.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 21:54:57 +0800 Yang Yingliang wrote:
> I got a memleak report when doing fault-inject test:
> 
> unreferenced object 0xffff88810ace9000 (size 1024):
>   comm "ip", pid 4622, jiffies 4295457037 (age 43.378s)
>   hex dump (first 32 bytes):
>     00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
>     00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
>   backtrace:
>     [<00000000008abe41>] __kmalloc+0x10f/0x210
>     [<000000005d3533a6>] veth_dev_init+0x140/0x310
>     [<0000000088353c64>] register_netdevice+0x496/0x7a0
>     [<000000001324d322>] veth_newlink+0x40b/0x960
>     [<00000000d0799866>] __rtnl_newlink+0xd8c/0x1360
>     [<00000000d616040a>] rtnl_newlink+0x6b/0xa0
>     [<00000000e0a1600d>] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x3cc/0x9e0
>     [<000000009eeff98b>] netlink_rcv_skb+0x130/0x3a0
>     [<00000000500f8be1>] netlink_unicast+0x4da/0x700
>     [<00000000666c03b3>] netlink_sendmsg+0x7fe/0xcb0
>     [<0000000073b28103>] sock_sendmsg+0x143/0x180
>     [<00000000ad746a30>] ____sys_sendmsg+0x677/0x810
>     [<0000000087dd98e5>] ___sys_sendmsg+0x105/0x180
>     [<00000000028dd365>] __sys_sendmsg+0xf0/0x1c0
>     [<00000000a6bfbae6>] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
>     [<00000000e00521b4>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> 
> It seems ifb and loopback may also hit the leak, so I try to fix this in
> register_netdevice().
> 
> In common case, priv_destructor() will be called in netdev_run_todo()
> after calling ndo_uninit() in rollback_registered(), on other error
> path in register_netdevice(), ndo_uninit() and priv_destructor() are
> called before register_netdevice() return, but in this case,
> priv_destructor() will never be called, then it causes memory leak,
> so we should call priv_destructor() here.
> 
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
> ---
> v2 -> v3: In wireguard driver, priv_destructor() will call
> free_netdev(), but it is assigned after register_netdevice(),
> so it will not lead a double free, drop patch#1. Also I've
> test wireguard device, it's no memory leak on this error path.

Sorry I don't want to apply yet another wobbly workaround to this path.
I started hacking on a rework of the registration / free which will
solve this and all the other corner cases which are broken around here.
Stay tuned.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 82dc6b48e45f..51b9cf1ff6a1 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -10003,6 +10003,16 @@  int register_netdevice(struct net_device *dev)
 		rcu_barrier();
 
 		dev->reg_state = NETREG_UNREGISTERED;
+		/* In common case, priv_destructor() will be
+		 * called in netdev_run_todo() after calling
+		 * ndo_uninit() in rollback_registered().
+		 * But in this case, priv_destructor() will
+		 * never be called, then it causes memory
+		 * leak, so we should call priv_destructor()
+		 * here.
+		 */
+		if (dev->priv_destructor)
+			dev->priv_destructor(dev);
 		/* We should put the kobject that hold in
 		 * netdev_unregister_kobject(), otherwise
 		 * the net device cannot be freed when