qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] hw/block/nvme: fix resource leak in nvme_format_ns


From: Max Reitz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hw/block/nvme: fix resource leak in nvme_format_ns
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:06:16 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0

On 22.03.21 11:48, Klaus Jensen wrote:
On Mar 22 11:02, Max Reitz wrote:
On 22.03.21 07:19, Klaus Jensen wrote:
From: Klaus Jensen <k.jensen@samsung.com>

In nvme_format_ns(), if the namespace is of zero size (which might be
useless, but not invalid), the `count` variable will leak. Fix this by
returning early in that case.

When looking at the Coverity report, something else caught my eye: As far as
I’m aware, blk_aio_pwrite_zeroes() may invoke the CB before returning (if
blk_do_pwritev_part() returns without yielding).  I don’t think that will
happen with real hardware (who knows, though), but it should be possible to
see with the null-co block driver.

nvme_format_ns() doesn’t quite look like it takes that into account. For
example, because *count starts at 1 and is decremented after the while (len)
loop, all nvme_aio_format_cb() invocations (if they are invoked before their
blk_aio_pwrite_zeroes() returns) will see
*count == 2, and thus not free it, or call nvme_enqueue_req_completion().

I don’t know whether the latter is problematic, but not freeing `count`
doesn’t seem right.  Perhaps this could be addressed by adding a condition
to the `(*count)--` to see whether `(*count)-- == 1` (or rather `--(*count)
== 0`), which would indicate that there are no AIO functions still in
flight?

Hi Max,

Thanks for glossing over this.

And, yeah, you are right, nice catch. The reference counting is exactly
to guard against pwrite_zeroes invoking the CB before returning, but if
it happens it is not correctly handling it anyway :(

This stuff is exactly why I proposed converting all this into the
"proper" BlockAIOCB approach (see [1]), but it need a little more work.

I'll v2 this with a fix for this! Thanks!


   [1]: 
20210302111040.289244-1-its@irrelevant.dk/">https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20210302111040.289244-1-its@irrelevant.dk/

OK, thanks! :)

That rewrite does look more in-line with how AIO is handled elsewhere, yes.

Max




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]