| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <52E7A635.2090108@citrix.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:44:37 +0100
From: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC: <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Matt Rushton <mrushton@...zon.com>,
Matt Wilson <msw@...zon.com>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen-blkback: fix memory leaks
On 27/01/14 22:21, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:13:41AM +0100, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>> I've at least identified two possible memory leaks in blkback, both
>> related to the shutdown path of a VBD:
>>
>> - We don't wait for any pending purge work to finish before cleaning
>> the list of free_pages. The purge work will call put_free_pages and
>> thus we might end up with pages being added to the free_pages list
>> after we have emptied it.
>> - We don't wait for pending requests to end before cleaning persistent
>> grants and the list of free_pages. Again this can add pages to the
>> free_pages lists or persistent grants to the persistent_gnts
>> red-black tree.
>>
>> Also, add some checks in xen_blkif_free to make sure we are cleaning
>> everything.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
>> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
>> Cc: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
>> Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
>> Cc: Matt Rushton <mrushton@...zon.com>
>> Cc: Matt Wilson <msw@...zon.com>
>> Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
>> ---
>> This should be applied after the patch:
>>
>> xen-blkback: fix memory leak when persistent grants are used
>>
>> >From Matt Rushton & Matt Wilson and backported to stable.
>>
>> I've been able to create and destroy ~4000 guests while doing heavy IO
>> operations with this patch on a 512M Dom0 without problems.
>> ---
>> drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++----------
>> drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c | 9 +++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
>> index 30ef7b3..19925b7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
>> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
>> @@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ static int dispatch_rw_block_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif,
>> struct pending_req *pending_req);
>> static void make_response(struct xen_blkif *blkif, u64 id,
>> unsigned short op, int st);
>> +static void xen_blk_drain_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif, bool force);
>>
>> #define foreach_grant_safe(pos, n, rbtree, node) \
>> for ((pos) = container_of(rb_first((rbtree)), typeof(*(pos)), node), \
>> @@ -625,6 +626,12 @@ purge_gnt_list:
>> print_stats(blkif);
>> }
>>
>> + /* Drain pending IO */
>> + xen_blk_drain_io(blkif, true);
>> +
>> + /* Drain pending purge work */
>> + flush_work(&blkif->persistent_purge_work);
>> +
>
> I think this means we can eliminate the refcnt usage - at least when
> it comes to xen_blkif_disconnect where if we would initiate the shutdown, and
> there is
>
> 239 atomic_dec(&blkif->refcnt);
> 240 wait_event(blkif->waiting_to_free, atomic_read(&blkif->refcnt) == 0);
> 241 atomic_inc(&blkif->refcnt);
> 242
>
> which is done _after_ the thread is done executing. That check won't
> be needed anymore as the xen_blk_drain_io, flush_work, and free_persistent_gnts
> has pretty much drained every I/O out - so the moment the thread exits
> there should be no need for waiting_to_free. I think.
I've reworked this patch a bit, so we don't drain the in-flight requests
here, and instead moved all the cleanup code to xen_blkif_free. I've
also split the xen_blkif_put race fix into a separate patch.
>
>> /* Free all persistent grant pages */
>> if (!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&blkif->persistent_gnts))
>> free_persistent_gnts(blkif, &blkif->persistent_gnts,
>> @@ -930,7 +937,7 @@ static int dispatch_other_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif,
>> return -EIO;
>> }
>>
>> -static void xen_blk_drain_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif)
>> +static void xen_blk_drain_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif, bool force)
>> {
>> atomic_set(&blkif->drain, 1);
>> do {
>> @@ -943,7 +950,7 @@ static void xen_blk_drain_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif)
>>
>> if (!atomic_read(&blkif->drain))
>> break;
>> - } while (!kthread_should_stop());
>> + } while (!kthread_should_stop() || force);
>> atomic_set(&blkif->drain, 0);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -976,17 +983,19 @@ static void __end_block_io_op(struct pending_req *pending_req, int error)
>> * the proper response on the ring.
>> */
>> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&pending_req->pendcnt)) {
>> - xen_blkbk_unmap(pending_req->blkif,
>> + struct xen_blkif *blkif = pending_req->blkif;
>> +
>> + xen_blkbk_unmap(blkif,
>> pending_req->segments,
>> pending_req->nr_pages);
>> - make_response(pending_req->blkif, pending_req->id,
>> + make_response(blkif, pending_req->id,
>> pending_req->operation, pending_req->status);
>> - xen_blkif_put(pending_req->blkif);
>> - if (atomic_read(&pending_req->blkif->refcnt) <= 2) {
>> - if (atomic_read(&pending_req->blkif->drain))
>> - complete(&pending_req->blkif->drain_complete);
>> + free_req(blkif, pending_req);
>> + xen_blkif_put(blkif);
>> + if (atomic_read(&blkif->refcnt) <= 2) {
>> + if (atomic_read(&blkif->drain))
>> + complete(&blkif->drain_complete);
>> }
>> - free_req(pending_req->blkif, pending_req);
>
> I keep coming back to this and I am not sure what to think - especially
> in the context of WRITE_BARRIER and disconnecting the vbd.
>
> You moved the 'free_req' to be done before you do atomic_read/dec.
>
> Which means that we do:
>
> list_add(&req->free_list, &blkif->pending_free);
> wake_up(&blkif->pending_free_wq);
>
> atomic_dec
> if atomic_read <= 2 poke thread that is waiting for drain.
>
>
> while in the past we did:
>
> atomic_dec
> if atomic_read <= 2 poke thread that is waiting for drain.
>
> list_add(&req->free_list, &blkif->pending_free);
> wake_up(&blkif->pending_free_wq);
>
> which means that we are giving the 'req' _before_ we decrement
> the refcnts.
>
> Could that mean that __do_block_io_op takes it for a spin - oh
> wait it won't as it is sitting on a WRITE_BARRIER and waiting:
>
> 1226 if (drain)
> 1227 xen_blk_drain_io(pending_req->blkif);
>
> But still that feels 'wrong'?
Mmmm, the wake_up call in free_req in the context of WRITE_BARRIER is
harmless since the thread is waiting on drain_complete as you say, but I
take your point that it's all confusing. Do you think it will feel
better if we gate the call to wake_up in free_req with this condition:
if (was_empty && !atomic_read(&blkif->drain))
Or is this just going to make it even messier?
Maybe just adding a comment in free_req saying that the wake_up call is
going to be ignored in the context of a WRITE_BARRIER, since the thread
is already waiting on drain_complete is enough.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists