Re: [PATCH 1/1] RDMA/cma: Fix rdma_resolve_route memory leak

[Gerd Rausch]

Hi Mark,

On 24/06/2021 22.49, Mark Zhang wrote:
> On 6/25/2021 2:55 AM, Gerd Rausch wrote:
>> Fix a memory leak when "rmda_resolve_route" is called
>> more than once on the same "rdma_cm_id".
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gerd Rausch <gerd.rausch@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>   drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c | 3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c
>> index ab148a696c0c..4a76d5b4163e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c
>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c
>> @@ -2819,7 +2819,8 @@ static int cma_resolve_ib_route(struct rdma_id_private *id_priv,
>>         cma_init_resolve_route_work(work, id_priv);
>>   -    route->path_rec = kmalloc(sizeof *route->path_rec, GFP_KERNEL);
>> +    if (!route->path_rec)
>> +        route->path_rec = kmalloc(sizeof *route->path_rec, GFP_KERNEL);
>>       if (!route->path_rec) {
>>           ret = -ENOMEM;
>>           goto err1;
> 
> If route->path_rec does exist (meaning this is not the first time called), then it would be freed if cma_query_ib_route() below is failed, is it good?

So the caller performs "rdma_resolve_route" which returns an immediate error,
but the expectation would be that the cm_id still points to
a valid (!= NULL) path record
(even though this error indicateed route lookup failed).

Which code-part and call-sequence would have such expectation?

I can't say I'm in love with this approach either, since the code
makes the assumption that "path_rec" (if != NULL) points to a space
that was allocated by "kmalloc" before and can be overwritten.
It's not permitted to point to something else.

But "__rdma_free" makes that assumption anyway, since it unconditionally
calls "kfree" on this pointer.

So there is precedence.

Just my 2ç,

  Gerd