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 22185A2EFC for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:47:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2021C221; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:47:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F381C0CE for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:47:24 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1571064443; 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=iT7WghYi1opUSdTYCx4+yhsvNKKWPuFRYb8lGG6saU0=; b=DMZLBrFzVgKmOAPA2UcpUKpJRVew76H1J/pot3P1tkInws2t/0t1pNDdXClYcRMIkv/1NP R9itJbLR9XcbryIn7PRxjahQGM29rub4sv7jrMZ+exJcZqrcpDsEEDvZnePqoEH1NvLFwl uYA3uUNetrFFn8p+nabB9n8wIXVC9fw= Received: from mail-ua1-f69.google.com (mail-ua1-f69.google.com [209.85.222.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-169-b7dt5vmINmOyEKlTHkD-uQ-1; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:47:22 -0400 Received: by mail-ua1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 66so4117336uao.0 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:47:22 -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=iT7WghYi1opUSdTYCx4+yhsvNKKWPuFRYb8lGG6saU0=; b=QLn/sEf7h4Nm0AvOSlsoUH+3rlQdyiJ3vAFJ8UeuwZOxMcSmMXjeS7RGk0fgW6gjpr 6Y84Md1GysTseFsHNzMTPZ/jmJdhsvJtYt65KGks2kl+pleWV3vcu+Ag3z0tU/T7FD/8 8u1JdX5Wmvx8ZNeOYnO14igZrV7D9ufPI5T+X7ngkf96DSDPX9uhwc2bKw1j5APGvhqd yEfcUIkrCKmEMai8Npnivx6gWMi/agpqeqqLl0T302EhlYFC11xxj9y001iw3CshQrXX gn48ReGwaymH8+KNI82btCPHCZmzgr/vWAoyZ50KJQoveWyykx0frXjyN66AFLZjzxSB OxEw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUI7bZ97m/SWYJb/1rtRLIP64npDcdTkxvxUKgb3vcgmPXsiYpn T5Bh/YAi+9F1Ok69GX77Tf6TPIbCYNkNDGqtekmw8ld6AfYjz0UIRwXg0MkL7++q5I5Rdrvi9mx ykM112A2R5MvIxywBvBM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:22ef:: with SMTP id b15mr7922182vsh.141.1571064442117; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:47:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzz7j4jVniiRZt8zGhNQ+aDkP3V0Zyj1WHTgaU6JoCeTHgr5hhXrZa0uxv00bMC0dglEUtOBtPErTlHDv3BTZ8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:22ef:: with SMTP id b15mr7922171vsh.141.1571064441858; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:47:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <156595762238.18723.10089009448135563310.stgit@jrharri1-skx> <54B140F8-B8E4-450B-908F-55DC7D7ED753@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <54B140F8-B8E4-450B-908F-55DC7D7ED753@intel.com> From: David Marchand Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:47:10 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Harris, James R" , "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: dev X-MC-Unique: b7dt5vmINmOyEKlTHkD-uQ-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 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 what= it fixes. > Can you give some insights of how common this issue is? If there are > known cases where it happens? > > Hi David, > > I don't think this issue is common at all. I don't have any known cases = 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. --=20 David Marchand