[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YW98RTBdzqin+9Ko@T590>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:17:41 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc: Quanyang Wang <quanyang.wang@...driver.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [V2][PATCH] cgroup: fix memory leak caused by missing
cgroup_bpf_offline
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 07:10:26PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 06:41:14PM +0800, Quanyang Wang <quanyang.wang@...driver.com> 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.)
>
> 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?
>
> I agree the commit 2b0d3d3e4fcf ("percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of
> percpu_ref in fast path") alone did nothing wrong.
If only precpu_ref data is leaked, it is fine to add "Fixes: 2b0d3d3e4fcf",
I thought cgroup_bpf_release() needs to release more for root cgroup, but
looks not true.
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists