[PATCH bpf 3/7] bpf: Free dynamically allocated bits in bpf_iter_bits_destroy()

[Hou Tao <houtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>

bpf_iter_bits_destroy() uses "kit->nr_bits <= 64" to check whether the
bits are dynamically allocated. However, the check is incorrect and may
cause a kmemleak as shown below:

unreferenced object 0xffff88812628c8c0 (size 32):
  comm "swapper/0", pid 1, jiffies 4294727320
  hex dump (first 32 bytes):
    b0 c1 55 f5 81 88 ff ff f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0  ..U.............
    f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
  backtrace (crc 781e32cc):
    [<00000000c452b4ab>] kmemleak_alloc+0x4b/0x80
    [<0000000004e09f80>] __kmalloc_node_noprof+0x480/0x5c0
    [<00000000597124d6>] __alloc.isra.0+0x89/0xb0
    [<000000004ebfffcd>] alloc_bulk+0x2af/0x720
    [<00000000d9c10145>] prefill_mem_cache+0x7f/0xb0
    [<00000000ff9738ff>] bpf_mem_alloc_init+0x3e2/0x610
    [<000000008b616eac>] bpf_global_ma_init+0x19/0x30
    [<00000000fc473efc>] do_one_initcall+0xd3/0x3c0
    [<00000000ec81498c>] kernel_init_freeable+0x66a/0x940
    [<00000000b119f72f>] kernel_init+0x20/0x160
    [<00000000f11ac9a7>] ret_from_fork+0x3c/0x70
    [<0000000004671da4>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30

That is because nr_bits will be set as zero in bpf_iter_bits_next()
after all bits have been iterated.

Fix the problem by introducing an extra allocated status in
bpf_iter_bits and using it to indicate whether the bits are
dynamically allocated.

Fixes: 4665415975b0 ("bpf: Add bits iterator")
Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
index 1a43d06eab28..9484b5f7c4c0 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
@@ -2856,7 +2856,8 @@ struct bpf_iter_bits_kern {
 		unsigned long *bits;
 		unsigned long bits_copy;
 	};
-	u32 nr_bits;
+	u32 allocated:1;
+	u32 nr_bits:31;
 	int bit;
 } __aligned(8);
 
@@ -2886,6 +2887,7 @@ bpf_iter_bits_new(struct bpf_iter_bits *it, const u64 *unsafe_ptr__ign, u32 nr_w
 	BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct bpf_iter_bits_kern) !=
 		     __alignof__(struct bpf_iter_bits));
 
+	kit->allocated = 0;
 	kit->nr_bits = 0;
 	kit->bits_copy = 0;
 	kit->bit = -1;
@@ -2914,6 +2916,7 @@ bpf_iter_bits_new(struct bpf_iter_bits *it, const u64 *unsafe_ptr__ign, u32 nr_w
 		return err;
 	}
 
+	kit->allocated = 1;
 	kit->nr_bits = nr_bits;
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -2937,7 +2940,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc int *bpf_iter_bits_next(struct bpf_iter_bits *it)
 	if (nr_bits == 0)
 		return NULL;
 
-	bits = nr_bits == 64 ? &kit->bits_copy : kit->bits;
+	bits = !kit->allocated ? &kit->bits_copy : kit->bits;
 	bit = find_next_bit(bits, nr_bits, kit->bit + 1);
 	if (bit >= nr_bits) {
 		kit->nr_bits = 0;
@@ -2958,7 +2961,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_bits_destroy(struct bpf_iter_bits *it)
 {
 	struct bpf_iter_bits_kern *kit = (void *)it;
 
-	if (kit->nr_bits <= 64)
+	if (!kit->allocated)
 		return;
 	bpf_mem_free(&bpf_global_ma, kit->bits);
 }
-- 
2.29.2