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 10:17:41 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <>
To:     Michal Koutný <>
Cc:     Quanyang Wang <>,
        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

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 <> 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.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists