On 1/14/24 4:04 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 04:55:23PM +0800, Zhipeng Lu wrote:
>> When dma_alloc_coherent fails to allocate dd->cr_base[i].va,
>> init_credit_return should deallocate dd->cr_base and
>> dd->cr_base[i] that allocated before. Or those resources
>> would be never freed and a memleak is triggered.
>>
>> Fixes: 7724105686e7 ("IB/hfi1: add driver files")
>> Signed-off-by: Zhipeng Lu <alexious@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/pio.c | 6 +++++-
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/pio.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/pio.c
>> index 68c621ff59d0..5a91cbda4aee 100644
>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/pio.c
>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/pio.c
>> @@ -2086,7 +2086,7 @@ int init_credit_return(struct hfi1_devdata *dd)
>> "Unable to allocate credit return DMA range for NUMA %d\n",
>> i);
>> ret = -ENOMEM;
>> - goto done;
>> + goto free_cr_base;
>> }
>> }
>> set_dev_node(&dd->pcidev->dev, dd->node);
>> @@ -2094,6 +2094,10 @@ int init_credit_return(struct hfi1_devdata *dd)
>> ret = 0;
>> done:
>> return ret;
>> +
>> +free_cr_base:
>> + free_credit_return(dd);
>
> Dennis,
>
> The idea of this patch is right, but it made me wonder, if
> free_credit_return() is correct.
Yes, I've double checked the call path and if init_credit_return() fails we do
not call the free_credit_return().
So this patch:
Acked-by: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> init_credit_return() iterates with help of for_each_node_with_cpus():
>
> 2062 int init_credit_return(struct hfi1_devdata *dd)
> 2063 {
> ...
> 2075 for_each_node_with_cpus(i) {
> 2076 int bytes = TXE_NUM_CONTEXTS * sizeof(struct credit_return);
> 2077
>
> But free_credit_return uses something else:
> 2099 void free_credit_return(struct hfi1_devdata *dd)
> 2100 {
> ...
> 2105 for (i = 0; i < node_affinity.num_possible_nodes; i++) {
> 2106 if (dd->cr_base[i].va) {
>
> Thanks
>
>> + goto done;
>> }
>>
>> void free_credit_return(struct hfi1_devdata *dd)
I think we are OK because the allocation uses node_affinity.num_possible_nodes
and in free_credit_return() we walk that entire array and if something is
allocated we free it.
Now why do we use for_each_node_with_cpus() at all? I believe that is because it
produces a subset of what is represented by num_possible_nodes(), which is OK
and doesn't leak anything.
-Denny
