On 08/11, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Hmm, bpf_uprobe_multi_link_attach() looks obviously wrong. > > bpf_link_prime() is called after the > > for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++) { > uprobe_register(...); > ... > } > > loop. If bpf_link_prime() fails, bpf_uprobe_multi_link_attach() just do > kvfree(uprobes) without _unregister(). In particular, this leaks the freed > bpf_uprobe->consumer in the uprobe->consumers list. > > After that another _unregister() on the same uprobe can hit the problem. > > I guess we need a simple patch for -stable...
Something like below on top of perf/core. But I don't like the usage of "i" in the +error_unregister path... Oleg. --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c @@ -3486,17 +3486,19 @@ int bpf_uprobe_multi_link_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *pr &uprobes[i].consumer); if (IS_ERR(uprobes[i].uprobe)) { err = PTR_ERR(uprobes[i].uprobe); - bpf_uprobe_unregister(uprobes, i); - goto error_free; + goto error_unregister; } } err = bpf_link_prime(&link->link, &link_primer); if (err) - goto error_free; + goto error_unregister; return bpf_link_settle(&link_primer); +error_unregister: + bpf_uprobe_unregister(uprobes, i); + error_free: kvfree(uprobes); kfree(link);