Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:01:32 +0000
From:   Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
To:     Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
CC:     "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org" 
        <driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        "olaf@...fle.de" <olaf@...fle.de>,
        "apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
        "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        vkuznets <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        "marcelo.cerri@...onical.com" <marcelo.cerri@...onical.com>,
        "jackm@...lanox.com" <jackm@...lanox.com>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: hv: Fix a memory leak in hv_eject_device_work()

> From: Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 10:47 AM
> To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>; Dexuan Cui
> <decui@...rosoft.com>
> Cc: bhelgaas@...gle.com; linux-pci@...r.kernel.org; KY Srinivasan
> <kys@...rosoft.com>; Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>;
> Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>; linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org; Haiyang
> Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>; olaf@...fle.de; apw@...onical.com;
> jasowang@...hat.com; vkuznets <vkuznets@...hat.com>;
> marcelo.cerri@...onical.com; jackm@...lanox.com; stable@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: hv: Fix a memory leak in hv_eject_device_work()
> 
> From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>  Sent: Tuesday, March 26,
> 2019 10:09 AM
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:12:03AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > > > From: Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 2:38 PM
> > > >
> > > > From: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > After a device is just created in new_pcichild_device(), hpdev->refs is
> set
> > > > > to 2 (i.e. the initial value of 1 plus the get_pcichild()).
> > > > >
> > > > > When we hot remove the device from the host, in Linux VM we first call
> > > > > hv_pci_eject_device(), which increases hpdev->refs by get_pcichild()
> and
> > > > > then schedules a work of hv_eject_device_work(), so hpdev->refs
> becomes 3
> > > > > (let's ignore the paired get/put_pcichild() in other places). But in
> > > > > hv_eject_device_work(), currently we only call put_pcichild() twice,
> > > > > meaning the 'hpdev' struct can't be freed in put_pcichild(). This patch
> > > > > adds one put_pcichild() to fix the memory leak.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, the device can also be removed when we run "rmmod pci-hyperv".
> On
> > > > this
> > > > > path (hv_pci_remove() -> hv_pci_bus_exit() ->
> hv_pci_devices_present()),
> > > > > hpdev->refs is 2, and we do correctly call put_pcichild() twice in
> > > > > pci_devices_present_work().
> > > >
> > > > Exiting new_pcichild_device() with hpdev->refs set to 2 seems OK to me.
> > > > There is the reference in the hbus->children list, and there is the
> reference that
> > > > is returned to the caller.
> > > So IMO the "normal" reference count should be 2. :-) IMO only when a
> hv_pci_dev
> > > device is about to be destroyed, its reference count can drop to less than 2,
> > > i.e. first temporarily drop to 1 (meaning the hv_pci_dev device is removed
> from
> > > hbus->children), and then drop to zero (meaning kfree(hpdev) is called).
> > >
> > > > But what is strange is that pci_devices_present_work()
> > > > overwrites the reference returned in local variable hpdev without doing a
> > > > put_pcichild().
> > > I suppose you mean:
> > >
> > >         /* First, mark all existing children as reported missing. */
> > >         spin_lock_irqsave(&hbus->device_list_lock, flags);
> > >         list_for_each_entry(hpdev, &hbus->children, list_entry) {
> > >                 hpdev->reported_missing = true;
> > >         }
> > >         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hbus->device_list_lock, flags)
> > >
> > > This is not strange to me, because, in pci_devices_present_work(), at first
> we
> > > don't know which devices are about to disappear, so we pre-mark all
> devices to
> > > be potentially missing like that; if a device is still on the bus, we'll mark its
> > > hpdev->reported_missing to false later; only after we know exactly which
> > > devices are missing, we should call put_pcichild() against them. All these
> > > seem natural to me.
> > >
> > > > It seems like the "normal" reference count should be 1 when the
> > > > child device is not being manipulated, not 2.
> > > What does "not being manipulated" mean?
> > >
> > > > The fix would be to add a call to
> > > > put_pcichild() when the return value from new_pcichild_device() is
> > > > overwritten.
> > > In pci_devices_present_work(), we NEVER "overwrite" the "hpdev"
> returned
> > > from new_pcichild_device(): the "reported_missing" field of the new hpdev
> > > is implicitly initialized to false in new_pcichild_device().
> > >
> > > > Then remove the call to put_pcichild() in pci_device_present_work()
> when
> > > > missing
> > > > children are moved to the local list. The children have been moved from
> one
> > > > list
> > > > to another, so there's no need to decrement the reference count.  Then
> when
> > > > everything in the local list is deleted, the reference is correctly
> decremented,
> > > > presumably freeing the memory.
> > > >
> > > > With this approach, the code in hv_eject_device_work() is correct.
> There's
> > > > one call to put_pcichild() to reflect removing the child device from the
> hbus->
> > > > children list, and one call to put_pcichild() to pair with the get_pcichild() in
> > > > hv_pci_eject_device().
> > > Please refer to my replies above. IMO we should fix
> > > hv_eject_device_work() rather than pci_devices_present_work().
> >
> > Have we reached a conclusion on this ? I would like to merge this series
> > given that it is fixing bugs and it has hung in the balance for quite
> > a while but it looks like Michael is not too happy about these patches
> > and I need a maintainer ACK to merge them.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lorenzo
> 
> Dexuan and I have discussed the topic extensively offline.  The patch works
> in its current form, and I'll agree to it.
> 
> Reviewed-by:  Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>

Thanks, Michael!

Hi Lorenzo,
All the 3 patches have got Michael's Reviewed-by.

Previously, Stephen Hemminger, one of the Hyper-V driver maintainers, 
provided his Reviewed-by in the " [PATCH 0/3]" mail:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/3/5/521

Thanks,
--Dexuan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists