From patchwork Tue Apr 12 13:49:27 2016 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Christian Ehrhardt X-Patchwork-Id: 12025 X-Patchwork-Delegate: thomas@monjalon.net Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Delivered-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0876E2BE6; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:49:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from youngberry.canonical.com (youngberry.canonical.com [91.189.89.112]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17DD72965 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:49:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 1.general.mandel.uk.vpn ([10.172.196.172] helo=localhost.localdomain) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1apyh2-0001fp-Gj; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:49:24 +0000 From: Christian Ehrhardt To: christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, olivier.matz@6wind.com Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:49:27 +0200 Message-Id: <1460468967-9206-1-git-send-email-christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] lpm: fix freeing of rules_tbl in rte_lpm_free_v20 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Back then when we fixed the missing free lpm I was to quickly to say yes if it applies not only to the lpm6 but also to all of the lpm code. It turned out to not apply to all of them. In rte_lpm_create_v20 there is an unexpected fused allocation: mem_size = sizeof(*lpm) + (sizeof(lpm->rules_tbl[0]) * max_rules); [...] lpm = (struct rte_lpm_v20 *)rte_zmalloc_socket(mem_name,mem_size, RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE, socket_id); That causes lpm->rules_tbl not to have an own struct malloc_elem that can be derived via RTE_PTR_SUB(data, MALLOC_ELEM_HEADER_LEN) in malloc_elem_from_data. Due to that the rte_lpm_free_v20 accidentially misderives the elem and assumes it is ELEM_FREE triggering in malloc_elem_free if (!malloc_elem_cookies_ok(elem) || elem->state != return -1; While it seems counter-intuitive the way to properly remove rules_tbl in the old fused allocation style of rte_lpm_free_v20 is to not remove it. The newer rte_lpm_free_v1604 is safe because in rte_lpm_create_v1604 rules_tbl is a separate allocation. Fixes: d4c18f0a1d5d ("lpm: fix missing free") Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt Acked-by: Olivier Matz --- lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c index 8bdf606..6f65d1c 100644 --- a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c +++ b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c @@ -373,7 +373,6 @@ rte_lpm_free_v20(struct rte_lpm_v20 *lpm) rte_rwlock_write_unlock(RTE_EAL_TAILQ_RWLOCK); - rte_free(lpm->rules_tbl); rte_free(lpm); rte_free(te); }