From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D44A0351; Sun, 27 Feb 2022 21:11:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038D240683; Sun, 27 Feb 2022 21:11:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EC8B40042 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2022 21:11:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157075C0094; Sun, 27 Feb 2022 15:11:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 27 Feb 2022 15:11:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; bh=c7wRTmUEctyOAg dcz60O7VkWmqFggR8FHZsYd7l/JnE=; b=HSUi5LcHZ/VhkpXLD1RWSfQQ2I1YAH yJVBHQaIbN5U3N9icDjONA4uOwDb/3HUqnXflABb5RiZyfNZuaP3QH6eRfPfvJ4Z UqZku9utuFXAC4h48EwVBZL7pxa3YJBeGdL1mqERWgC3crEV/P0+xHuBKM8AHhWu VFv1KV1IQFZRLnSuPHpiZqySTCuj80436EGx0fQlaSOemv1kYeePrtGc66ObgZk3 OjxMAf3jxNpdPx0qZhHR+PflGUElS6LnDipp9OMKu28UotV2pVUCzEtsn5Zu1Bsw uPZknP2CoB+BjVk3zaTto4cENF/s35tr1sb22GkroQk/3pw6yYYquYQA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=c7wRTmUEctyOAgdcz60O7VkWmqFggR8FHZsYd7l/J nE=; b=mvmhpAl0z7NqO4G0BhQjuUrSVMJbncw74pBQjOIGvumWqvpAThueOPSGy w3yuh1PYymCkK5v8aFymilZr47Scu73jpMd6h5ziZdH/sOMgMyicDGPn91tMQT2U VpbzSdUm8m1ZZLmr2XTC1UCKovFYghSYrHBJla9iDOZPaparulZyeVh5aR9UbvNZ 1pIh1ScAxA34bpziurCHSKG7Ldr/hOFjuYJpmi9B/BliU6S4p1V5mdIOAP+ZCR0M Sp7NxqBrrgbwp91eMWRIoSe4tr/Bxt2taNNBRrvIxhGFHRTNjbzVchdnHCy6dfUV jAwK+RKVMB4gSjtwzujEN1xGa7XtA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrleekgddufedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 27 Feb 2022 15:11:10 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Min Hu (Connor)" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, iryzhov@nfware.com, Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kni: fix use-after-free when kni release Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2022 21:11:09 +0100 Message-ID: <3979221.CQOukoFCf9@thomas> In-Reply-To: <48145833-dde0-2e7f-798f-2fbbe2b179bc@intel.com> References: <20220128024336.26961-1-humin29@huawei.com> <48145833-dde0-2e7f-798f-2fbbe2b179bc@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 15/02/2022 20:11, Ferruh Yigit: > On 2/14/2022 6:41 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > On 2/9/2022 7:35 AM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote: > >> From: Huisong Li > >> > >> The "kni_dev" is the private data of the "net_device" in kni, and allocated > >> with the "net_device" by calling "alloc_netdev()". The "net_device" is > >> freed by calling "free_netdev()" when kni release. The freed memory > >> includes the "kni_dev". So After "kni_dev" should not be accessed after > >> "net_device" is released. > >> > > > > The problem description looks valid and change looks good to me, > > > > only list_del after remove is like this for years, I wonder how > > it is not caught until now, or if we are missing something, I > > want to test some before ack, which I will do in next few days. > > > Acked-by: Ferruh Yigit Applied, thanks.