On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 11:36:54AM +0100, Mandal, Anurag wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Burakov, Anatoly <[email protected]>
> > Sent: 06 October 2026 15:33
> > To: Mandal, Anurag <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> > Cc: Richardson, Bruce <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ice: fix unchecked Tx time context allocation
> >
> > On 10/2/2026 4:19 AM, Anurag Mandal wrote:
> > > ice_tx_queue_start() dereferences the Tx time queue context buffer
> > > returned by ice_malloc() without NULL check.
> > > On allocation failure, the E830 send-on-timestamp path therefore
> > > crashes instead of reporting "No Memory" error, and also the already
> > > allocated txq_elem buffer gets leaked.
> > >
> > > Added the necessary allocation failure check and freed txq_elem buffer
> > > in case of failure to avoid the memory leak.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 0b6ff09a1f19 ("net/intel: support Tx packet pacing for E830")
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Anurag Mandal <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c | 4 ++++
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> > > b/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> > > index b333444cbf..873aca0100 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_rxtx.c
> > > @@ -898,6 +898,10 @@ ice_tx_queue_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> > uint16_t tx_queue_id)
> > > u8 ts_buf_len = ice_struct_size(ts_elem, txtimeqs, 1);
> > >
> > > ts_elem = ice_malloc(hw, ts_buf_len);
> > > + if (!ts_elem) {
> > > + rte_free(txq_elem);
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > + }
> > > ice_setup_txtime_ctx(txq, &txtime_ctx, true);
> > > ice_set_ctx(hw, (u8 *)&txtime_ctx,
> > > ts_elem->txtimeqs[0].txtime_ctx,
> >
> > I don't particularly like the fact that we're allocating using `ice_malloc`
> > but
> > freeing using `rte_free`. This works only accidentally (because `ice_malloc`
> > resolves to `rte_malloc`).
> >
> > Not a blocker for this patch, as this is following established convention
> > in this
> > function, but IMO this code could benefit from a separate patch replacing
> > direct `rte_free` calls with `ice_free`.
> >
> > Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <[email protected]>
> >
>
> I will be sending a separate patch to change replacing direct `rte_free`
> calls with `ice_free`for buffers allocated via 'ice_malloc'
>
That would be great. I think I'd prefer to take that patch first, so can
you put it in a 2-patch set with this one (reworked to use ice_free)?
