On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 2:21 AM linmiaohe <linmia...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all:
> David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
> >From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com>
> >Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:02:51 -0700
> >
> >>> @@ -3406,6 +3406,16 @@ static void sock_inuse_add(struct net *net,
> >>> int val) } #endif
> >>>
> >>> +static void tw_prot_cleanup(struct timewait_sock_ops *twsk_prot) {
> >>> + if (!twsk_prot)
> >>> + return;
> >>> + kfree(twsk_prot->twsk_slab_name);
> >>> + twsk_prot->twsk_slab_name = NULL;
> >>> + kmem_cache_destroy(twsk_prot->twsk_slab);
> >>
> >> Hmm, are you sure you can free the kmem cache name before
> >> kmem_cache_destroy()? To me, it seems kmem_cache_destroy() frees the
> >> name via slab_kmem_cache_release() via kfree_const().
> >> With your patch, we have a double-free on the name?
> >>
> >> Or am I missing anything?
> >
> >Yep, there is a double free here.
> >
> >Please fix this.
>
> Many thanks for both of you to point this issue out. But I'am not really
> understand, could you please explain it more?
> As far as I can see, the double free path is:
> 1. kfree(twsk_prot->twsk_slab_name)
> 2. kmem_cache_destroy
> --> shutdown_memcg_caches
> --> shutdown_cache
> --> slab_kmem_cache_release
> --> kfree_const(s->name)
> But twsk_prot->twsk_slab_name is allocated from kasprintf via
> kmalloc_track_caller while twsk_prot->twsk_slab->name is allocated
> via kstrdup_const. So I think twsk_prot->twsk_slab_name and
> twsk_prot->twsk_slab->name point to different memory, and there is no double
> free.
>
You are right. Since it is duplicated, then there is no need to keep
->twsk_slab_name, we can just use twsk_slab->name. I will send
a patch to get rid of it.
> Or am I missing anything?
>
> By the way, req_prot_cleanup() do the same things, i.e. free the slab_name
> before involve kmem_cache_destroy(). If there is a double
> free, so as here?
Ditto. Can be just removed.
Thanks.
