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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:16:01 +0800
From:   Quanyang Wang <>
To:     Michal Koutný <>
Cc:     Ming Lei <>, Tejun Heo <>,
        Zefan Li <>,
        Johannes Weiner <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <>,
        Jens Axboe <>, Roman Gushchin <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [V2][PATCH] cgroup: fix memory leak caused by missing

Hi Michal,

On 10/20/21 1:10 AM, Michal Koutný wrote:
> Hi.
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 06:41:14PM +0800, Quanyang Wang <> wrote:
>> So I add 2 "Fixes tags" here to indicate that 2 commits introduce two
>> different issues.
> AFAIU, both the changes are needed to cause the leak, a single patch
> alone won't cause the issue. Is that correct? (Perhaps not as I realize,
> see below.)
Yes, I back to the earlier commit 4bfc0bb2c60e and no memory leak is 
> But on second thought, the problem is the missing percpu_ref_exit() in
> the (root) cgroup release path and percpu counter would allocate the
> percpu_count_ptr anyway, so 4bfc0bb2c60e is only making the leak more
> visible. Is this correct?
No, the earlier commit 4bfc0bb2c60e introduces a imbalance and the later
commit 2b0d3d3e4fcf introduces a visible leak.

> I agree the commit 2b0d3d3e4fcf ("percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of
> percpu_ref in fast path") alone did nothing wrong.
> [On a related (but independent) note, there seems to be an optimization
> opportunity in not dealing with cgroup_bpf at all on the non-default
> hierarchies.]
> Regards,
> Michal

Powered by blists - more mailing lists