Re: [PATCH net v3] driver: veth: Fix one possbile memleak when fail to register_netdevice
From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-05-03 11:25:50
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Gao Feng [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
From: Xin Long [mailto:lucien.xin@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 1:38 PM On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Gao Feng [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
From: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Xin Long Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 12:59 AM On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Gao Feng [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
From: Xin Long [mailto:lucien.xin@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 3:56 PM On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 11:51 AM, [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
From: Gao Feng <redacted>[...]quoted
quoted
The fix you mentioned change the original logic. The dev->vstats is freed in advance in the ndo_uninit, not destructor. It may break the backward.Sorry, I didn't get your "backward" I can't see there will be any problem caused by it. can you say this patch also break the 'backward' ? https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/748964/ It's really weird to do dev->reg_state check in ndo_unint ndo_unint is supposed to free the memory alloced in ndo_init.I am not sure if it would break the backward, so I said it MAY break. I assumed there may be someone would access the dev->vstats after ndo_uninit, because current veth driver free the mem in the destructor. I selected this approach because I don't want to bring new bugs during fix bug. If you're sure it is safe to free dev->vstats in ndo_uninit, I would like to update it.
yes, stats are accessed in .ndo_start_xmit waited by synchronize_net() and .ndo_get_stats64 protected by rtnl_lock().
BTW there are too many drivers which have possible memleak. You could find the list by https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg166629.html.
ah, cool. I'm not sure about other dev's stuff, have to check them for sure later.
Some drivers allocate the resources in ndo_init, free some in ndo_uninit and free left in destructor. I think there are some reasons. We could not move all free in the ndo_uninit from destructor. What's your opinion? Best Regards Feng