Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Documentation of list_del_rcu() warns callers to not immediately free
> the deleted list item. While it seems not necessary to use the
> RCU-variant of list_del() here in the first place, doing so seems to
> require calling kfree_rcu() on the deleted item as well.
>
> Fixes: 3f0465a9ef02 ("netfilter: nf_tables: dynamically allocate hooks per net_device in flowtables")
> Signed-off-by: Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx>
> ---
> net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c b/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c
> index b6547fe22bd8..2982f49b6d55 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c
> @@ -9180,7 +9180,7 @@ static void nf_tables_flowtable_destroy(struct nft_flowtable *flowtable)
> flowtable->data.type->setup(&flowtable->data, hook->ops.dev,
> FLOW_BLOCK_UNBIND);
> list_del_rcu(&hook->list);
> - kfree(hook);
> + kfree_rcu(hook, rcu);
> }
> kfree(flowtable->name);
> module_put(flowtable->data.type->owner);
AFAICS its safe to use list_del() everywhere, I can't find a single
instance where the hooks are iterated without mutex serialization.
nf_tables_flowtable_destroy() is called after the hook has been
unregisted (detached from nf_hook list) and rcu grace period elapsed.
