From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6657A2EFC for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:39:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2881ED09; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:39:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D86F1ED06 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:39:11 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1571164750; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=pgr/1GXleCzyppEKoP/BOHJOjBtkcJ+6f5y8YO6JDas=; b=REOcFM+97B3I5z1ydaay1iWdVDhkaAtlG3yPUuoQEDmhQO2mmtIX4Y+aoLcmtemLD7BFq5 EdqFyGmS05979HpRj8FtKtZeIMnGfPvWuV2iYdIQncAVqlULupuPGGeNkZ1N2eBCm3SKAP q5DgHzhEG807Rv0qEyJNM3tv6lUIqIE= Received: from mail-vk1-f200.google.com (mail-vk1-f200.google.com [209.85.221.200]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-359-RhZmawNIN82lMVnYFirIMw-1; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:39:09 -0400 Received: by mail-vk1-f200.google.com with SMTP id x128so8625170vkx.16 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:39:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pgr/1GXleCzyppEKoP/BOHJOjBtkcJ+6f5y8YO6JDas=; b=UqR0ZGXv3+TuQMEcmEWZR3E37EzojLa9QH+5QPBxG7SPkSj9kwKv7k8p3Bm234j3Fe ERAyosWZKTYQ4DKvyRc0geuFMCzDm/pDA9V0/brDydmVwK0vUXFoWXeztdsAlVcYYSUd laintIJ4I+3TWb3xUKbQt7dmp2yi7LfMsixidMKaLSbbx6ga3hSQwvUPYfs7Wx0lC1rX dW21oAbPaL80rw2c5ht6Dqz3wDhTQMmsQ4lxD352+SKLPDurZC5YTVEwJjDJN/62c9Q5 mBNfTy1LN/eTEbrEnPCtKyB0CMHza3zb18Al9UXRRbJOJHiEmwLSQuMqEX89KRcUSP/n lWDg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVscbT+HCrUq6vbPzj/O4n38lLpKFB8mDkqvf/6jZkLWKMOXlKm PXvAjacgr1aVKJeRUaOvE3PDW1RjNmw5sLDhRU4jPqBI/efY2SwyKXXEGKZT3tWnUsXfyp8fsBQ HhAeQlclBgKTP4299jIg= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fc49:: with SMTP id p9mr21038170vsq.198.1571164748861; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:39:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxVg3vT34rxm9Td5GzfX7cdCm2yCVMLJRtMwUc00hgomqpbqfzDDAK36A5CvIR8BbUi8nwG6YsaY2z6uZ7Bz9E= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fc49:: with SMTP id p9mr21038152vsq.198.1571164748513; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:39:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <156595762238.18723.10089009448135563310.stgit@jrharri1-skx> <54B140F8-B8E4-450B-908F-55DC7D7ED753@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:38:57 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Harris, James R" , "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: dev X-MC-Unique: RhZmawNIN82lMVnYFirIMw-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vfio: free mp_reply msgs in failure cases X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:47 PM David Marchand wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 3:49 PM Harris, James R > wrote: > > =EF=BB=BFOn 10/14/19, 4:18 AM, "David Marchand" wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:19 PM Jim Harris wrote: > > > > > > The code checks both rte_mp_request_sync() return > > > code and that the number of messages in the reply > > > equals 1. If rte_mp_request_sync() succeeds but > > > there was more than one message, those messages > > > would get leaked. > > > > > > Found via code review by Anatoly Burakov of patches > > > that used the vhost code as a template for using > > > rte_mp_request_sync(). > > > > The patch looks fine, I just want to make sure its title reflect wh= at it fixes. > > Can you give some insights of how common this issue is? If there ar= e > > known cases where it happens? > > > > Hi David, > > > > I don't think this issue is common at all. I don't have any known case= s in mind - it was only found via code inspection. > > Anatoly, Jim, > > Not really inspired for the title, what do you think of: > vfio: fix potential leak with multiprocess > > Plus, it deserves a Fixes: line. > Fixes: 83a73c5fef66 ("vfio: use generic multi-process channel") > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > If you are okay with this, I will do the change when applying. Applied, thanks. -- David Marchand