On 2022/11/24 11:04, Xin Long wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 2:01 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 01:48:01PM -0500, Xin Long wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 1:30 PM Xin Long <lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 1:10 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 12:20:44PM -0500, Xin Long wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 6:35 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:15:50PM -0500, Xin Long wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 3:48 AM Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When sctp_stream_outq_migrate() is called to release stream out resources,
the memory pointed to by prio_head in stream out is not released.
The memory leak information is as follows:
unreferenced object 0xffff88801fe79f80 (size 64):
comm "sctp_repo", pid 7957, jiffies 4294951704 (age 36.480s)
hex dump (first 32 bytes):
80 9f e7 1f 80 88 ff ff 80 9f e7 1f 80 88 ff ff ................
90 9f e7 1f 80 88 ff ff 90 9f e7 1f 80 88 ff ff ................
backtrace:
[<ffffffff81b215c6>] kmalloc_trace+0x26/0x60
[<ffffffff88ae517c>] sctp_sched_prio_set+0x4cc/0x770
[<ffffffff88ad64f2>] sctp_stream_init_ext+0xd2/0x1b0
[<ffffffff88aa2604>] sctp_sendmsg_to_asoc+0x1614/0x1a30
[<ffffffff88ab7ff1>] sctp_sendmsg+0xda1/0x1ef0
[<ffffffff87f765ed>] inet_sendmsg+0x9d/0xe0
[<ffffffff8754b5b3>] sock_sendmsg+0xd3/0x120
[<ffffffff8755446a>] __sys_sendto+0x23a/0x340
[<ffffffff87554651>] __x64_sys_sendto+0xe1/0x1b0
[<ffffffff89978b49>] do_syscall_64+0x39/0xb0
[<ffffffff89a0008b>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
Fixes: 637784ade221 ("sctp: introduce priority based stream scheduler")
Reported-by: syzbot+29c402e56c4760763cc0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/sctp/stream.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/sctp/stream.c b/net/sctp/stream.c
index ef9fceadef8d..a17dc368876f 100644
--- a/net/sctp/stream.c
+++ b/net/sctp/stream.c
@@ -70,6 +70,9 @@ static void sctp_stream_outq_migrate(struct sctp_stream *stream,
* sctp_stream_update will swap ->out pointers.
*/
for (i = 0; i < outcnt; i++) {
+ if (SCTP_SO(new, i)->ext)
+ kfree(SCTP_SO(new, i)->ext->prio_head);
+
kfree(SCTP_SO(new, i)->ext);
SCTP_SO(new, i)->ext = SCTP_SO(stream, i)->ext;
SCTP_SO(stream, i)->ext = NULL;
@@ -77,6 +80,9 @@ static void sctp_stream_outq_migrate(struct sctp_stream *stream,
}
for (i = outcnt; i < stream->outcnt; i++) {
+ if (SCTP_SO(stream, i)->ext)
+ kfree(SCTP_SO(stream, i)->ext->prio_head);
+
kfree(SCTP_SO(stream, i)->ext);
SCTP_SO(stream, i)->ext = NULL;
}
--
2.17.1
This is not a proper fix:
1. you shouldn't access "prio_head" outside stream_sched_prio.c.
2. the prio_head you freed might be used by other out streams, freeing
it unconditionally would cause either a double free or use after free.
I'm afraid we have to add a ".free_sid" in sctp_sched_ops, and
implement it for sctp_sched_prio, like:
+static void sctp_sched_prio_free_sid(struct sctp_stream *stream, __u16 sid)
+{
+ struct sctp_stream_priorities *prio = SCTP_SO(stream,
sid)->ext->prio_head;
+ int i;
+
+ if (!prio)
+ return;
+
+ SCTP_SO(stream, sid)->ext->prio_head = NULL;
+ for (i = 0; i < stream->outcnt; i++) {
Instead of checking all streams, the for() can/should be replaced by
(from sctp_sched_prio_free):
if (!list_empty(&prio->prio_sched))
return;
sctp_stream_outq_migrate() is called after unsched_all() for "stream",
list_empty(prio_sched) is expected to be true.
Good point. Am I missing something or the 'prio_head == prio' below
would always be false then as well?
sorry, forgot to reply to this one :D
:D
after .unsched_all, multiple outstreams may have the same prio_head,
which are not on any list (like stream->prio_list).
so when freeing one outstream ext, it will need to go over all outstreams' exts
and check if this outstream ext's prio is equal to that of any other outstreams.
Understood. The check in sctp_sched_prio_free() is actually checking
if the prio_head is not yet scheduled for freeing instead, right.
Thanks. Hmm. This for() can be quite expensive then. :-(
Anyhow, as this is moving to something that can potentially be called
from other places afterwards, keeping the check doesn't hurt.
Note that kfree(SCTP_SO(new, i)->ext) shouldn't have the reported
problem, as at that moment, the "new" stream hasn't been set
stream_sched yet. It means there's only one place that needs to
call free_sid in sctp_stream_outq_migrate().
(Maybe Zhengchao can help us confirm this?)
That's the case in Tetsuo's patch (earlier today) as well. Yet, if we
have an official way to free a stream, if it's not error handling
during initialization, it should use it.
right.
+ if (SCTP_SO(stream, i)->ext &&
+ SCTP_SO(stream, i)->ext->prio_head == prio)
+ return;
+ }
+ kfree(prio);
+}
+
static void sctp_sched_prio_free(struct sctp_stream *stream)
{
struct sctp_stream_priorities *prio, *n;
@@ -323,6 +340,7 @@ static struct sctp_sched_ops sctp_sched_prio = {
.get = sctp_sched_prio_get,
.init = sctp_sched_prio_init,
.init_sid = sctp_sched_prio_init_sid,
+ .free_sid = sctp_sched_prio_free_sid,
.free = sctp_sched_prio_free,
.enqueue = sctp_sched_prio_enqueue,
.dequeue = sctp_sched_prio_dequeue,
then call it in sctp_stream_outq_migrate(), like:
+static void sctp_stream_free_ext(struct sctp_stream *stream, __u16 sid)
+{
+ struct sctp_sched_ops *sched = sctp_sched_ops_from_stream(stream);
+
+ sched->free_sid(stream, sid);
+ kfree(SCTP_SO(stream, sid)->ext);
+ SCTP_SO(stream, sid)->ext = NULL;
+}
+
/* Migrates chunks from stream queues to new stream queues if needed,
* but not across associations. Also, removes those chunks to streams
* higher than the new max.
@@ -70,16 +79,14 @@ static void sctp_stream_outq_migrate(struct
sctp_stream *stream,
* sctp_stream_update will swap ->out pointers.
*/
for (i = 0; i < outcnt; i++) {
- kfree(SCTP_SO(new, i)->ext);
+ sctp_stream_free_ext(new, i);
SCTP_SO(new, i)->ext = SCTP_SO(stream, i)->ext;
SCTP_SO(stream, i)->ext = NULL;
}
}
- for (i = outcnt; i < stream->outcnt; i++) {
- kfree(SCTP_SO(stream, i)->ext);
- SCTP_SO(stream, i)->ext = NULL;
- }
+ for (i = outcnt; i < stream->outcnt; i++)
+ sctp_stream_free_ext(new, i);
}
Marcelo, do you see a better solution?
No. Your suggestion is the best I could think of too.
Another approach would be to expose sched->free and do all the freeing
at once, like sctp_stream_free() does. But the above is looks cleaner
and makes it evident that freeing 'ext' is not trivial.
With the proposal above, sctp_sched_prio_free() becomes an
optimization, if we can call it that. With the for/if replacement
above, not even that, and should be removed. Including sctp_sched_ops
'free' pointer.
Or we extract the common code to another function, like
sctp_sched_prio_free_head(stream, prio), and pass prio as
NULL in sctp_sched_prio_free() for freeing all.
sctp_stream_free() then should be updated to use the new
sctp_stream_free_ext() instead, instead of mangling it directly.
I thought about this, but there is ".free", which is more efficient
to free all prio than calling ".free_sid" outcnt times.
How much more efficient, just by avoiding retpoline stuff on the
indirect functional call or something else?
in sctp_stream_free():
.free() will be called one time to free all prios
while .free_sid will be called in a loop to free all prios:
for (i = 0; i < stream->outcnt; i++)
.free_sid(stream, i);
inside either() .free or . free_sid() there is another loop:
for (i = 0; i < stream->outcnt; i++)
...
That's why I said using .free() in sctp_stream_free() will be more efficient.
I may move free_sid() out of sctp_stream_free_ext(), then in
sctp_stream_free() we can call sctp_stream_free_ext() without
calling free_sid(), or just remove sctp_stream_free_ext().
It's easier to maintain it if we have symmetric paths for initializing
and for freeing it and less special cases. We already have
sctp_stream_init_ext(), so having sctp_stream_free_ext() is not off.
didn't notice init_sid in sctp_stream_init_ext(), it makes sense to
have free_sid in sctp_stream_free_ext().
Thanks.
I'm happy to review any patch that also updates sctp_stream_free(),
one way or another.
Hi, Zhengchao
Would you please post v2 with the proposal above?
(also add syzkaller-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx into Cc list as Tetsuo
suggested in another thread)
Thanks.
OK， I will send V2 as soon as I have tested patch.
Zhengchao Shao
