linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm, slub: emit the "free" trace report before freeing memory in kmem_cache

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 11:37:11 -0700
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>, cl@...ux.com,
        penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, vbabka@...e.cz,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     songmuchun@...edance.com, willy@...radead.org, wuxu.wu@...wei.com,
        Hewenliang <hewenliang4@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm, slub: emit the "free" trace report before freeing
 memory in kmem_cache_free()

On 11/2/21 04:43, Yunfeng Ye wrote:
> After the memory is freed, it can be immediately allocated by other
> CPUs, before the "free" trace report has been emitted. This causes
> inaccurate traces.
> 
> For example, if the following sequence of events occurs:
> 
>      CPU 0                 CPU 1
> 
>    (1) alloc xxxxxx
>    (2) free  xxxxxx
>                           (3) alloc xxxxxx
>                           (4) free  xxxxxx
> 
> Then they will be inaccurately reported via tracing, so that they appear
> to have happened in this order:
> 
>      CPU 0                 CPU 1
> 
>    (1) alloc xxxxxx
>                           (2) alloc xxxxxx
>    (3) free  xxxxxx
>                           (4) free  xxxxxx
> 
> This makes it look like CPU 1 somehow managed to allocate mmemory that


I see I created a typo for you, sorry about that: s/mmemory/memory/

But anyway, the wording looks good now. Please feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

> CPU 0 still had allocated for itself.
> 
> In order to avoid this, emit the "free xxxxxx" tracing report just
> before the actual call to free the memory, instead of just after it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> ---
> v1 -> v2:
>   - Modify the description
>   - Add "Reviewed-by"
> 
>   mm/slub.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 432145d7b4ec..427e62034c3f 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -3526,8 +3526,8 @@ void kmem_cache_free(struct kmem_cache *s, void *x)
>   	s = cache_from_obj(s, x);
>   	if (!s)
>   		return;
> -	slab_free(s, virt_to_head_page(x), x, NULL, 1, _RET_IP_);
>   	trace_kmem_cache_free(_RET_IP_, x, s->name);
> +	slab_free(s, virt_to_head_page(x), x, NULL, 1, _RET_IP_);
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_free);
>