[PATCHv2 bpf-next 4/8] ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_del function

[Jiri Olsa]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 01:02:21PM +0000, bot+bpf-ci at kernel.org wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace.h b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > index ded3a306a..433c36c3a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > @@ -543,6 +543,7 @@ int modify_ftrace_direct(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);
> >  int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);
> >
> >  int update_ftrace_direct_add(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash);
> > +int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash);
> >
> >  void ftrace_stub_direct_tramp(void);
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > index 311ce6406..345f3fdd2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > +int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)
> > +{
> > +	struct ftrace_hash *new_hash = NULL, *filter_hash = NULL, *free_hash = NULL;
> > +	struct ftrace_func_entry *del, *entry;
> > +	unsigned long size, i;
> > +	int err = -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	if (!hash_count(hash))
> > +		return 0;
> > +	if (check_direct_multi(ops))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	if (!(ops->flags & FTRACE_OPS_FL_ENABLED))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	if (direct_functions == EMPTY_HASH)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&direct_mutex);
> > +
> > +	/* Make sure requested entries are already registered. */
> > +	size = 1 << hash->size_bits;
> > +	for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> > +		hlist_for_each_entry(entry, &hash->buckets[i], hlist) {
> > +			del = __ftrace_lookup_ip(direct_functions, entry->ip);
> > +			if (!del || del->direct != entry->direct)
> > +				goto out_unlock;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	err = -ENOMEM;
> > +	filter_hash = hash_sub(ops->func_hash->filter_hash, hash);
> > +	if (!filter_hash)
> > +		goto out_unlock;
> > +
> > +	new_hash = hash_sub(direct_functions, hash);
> > +	if (!new_hash)
> > +		goto out_unlock;
> 
> Can this leak new_hash?  If hash_sub() succeeds for both filter_hash
> and new_hash, but then either unregister_ftrace_function() or
> ftrace_update_ops() fails below, we goto out_unlock without freeing
> new_hash.  The cleanup code only frees filter_hash:
> 
> > +
> > +	/* If there's nothing left, we need to unregister the ops. */
> > +	if (ftrace_hash_empty(filter_hash)) {
> > +		err = unregister_ftrace_function(ops);
> > +		/* cleanup for possible another register call */
> > +		ops->func = NULL;
> > +		ops->trampoline = 0;
> > +		ftrace_free_filter(ops);
> > +		ops->func_hash->filter_hash = NULL;
> > +	} else {
> > +		err = ftrace_update_ops(ops, filter_hash, EMPTY_HASH);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (!err) {
> > +		free_hash = direct_functions;
> > +		rcu_assign_pointer(direct_functions, new_hash);
> > +	}
> > +
> > + out_unlock:
> > +	mutex_unlock(&direct_mutex);
> > +
> > +	if (free_hash && free_hash != EMPTY_HASH)
> > +		call_rcu_tasks(&free_hash->rcu, register_ftrace_direct_cb);
> > +	if (filter_hash)
> > +		free_ftrace_hash(filter_hash);
> > +
> > +	return err;
> > +}
> 
> If err != 0, new_hash remains allocated but is never freed.  Should the
> cleanup code add free_ftrace_hash(new_hash) when it's non-NULL?

yep, that's a miss, will fix

thanks,
jirka