linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] optee: Suppress false positive kmemleak report in optee_handle

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <2c9f2f34-9dab-4f1b-bc10-48212fb70335@windriver.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Dec 2021 16:55:45 +0800
From:   wangxiaolei <xiaolei.wang@...driver.com>
To:     Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        Jerome Forissier <jerome@...issier.org>
Cc:     "op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org" <op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
        Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] optee: Suppress false positive kmemleak report in
 optee_handle_rpc()


On 12/10/21 5:38 PM, Sumit Garg wrote:
> [Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 at 13:40, Jerome Forissier <jerome@...issier.org> wrote:
>> +CC Jens, Etienne
>>
>> On 12/10/21 06:00, Sumit Garg wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 at 09:42, Wang, Xiaolei <Xiaolei.Wang@...driver.com> wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 7:41 PM
>>>> To: Wang, Xiaolei <Xiaolei.Wang@...driver.com>
>>>> Cc: jens.wiklander@...aro.org; op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] optee: Suppress false positive kmemleak report in optee_handle_rpc()
>>>>
>>>> [Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 17:35, Xiaolei Wang <xiaolei.wang@...driver.com> wrote:
>>>>> We observed the following kmemleak report:
>>>>> unreferenced object 0xffff000007904500 (size 128):
>>>>>    comm "swapper/0", pid 1, jiffies 4294892671 (age 44.036s)
>>>>>    hex dump (first 32 bytes):
>>>>>      00 47 90 07 00 00 ff ff 60 00 c0 ff 00 00 00 00  .G......`.......
>>>>>      60 00 80 13 00 80 ff ff a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  `...............
>>>>>    backtrace:
>>>>>      [<000000004c12b1c7>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x1ac/0x2f4
>>>>>      [<000000005d23eb4f>] tee_shm_alloc+0x78/0x230
>>>>>      [<00000000794dd22c>] optee_handle_rpc+0x60/0x6f0
>>>>>      [<00000000d9f7c52d>] optee_do_call_with_arg+0x17c/0x1dc
>>>>>      [<00000000c35884da>] optee_open_session+0x128/0x1ec
>>>>>      [<000000001748f2ff>] tee_client_open_session+0x28/0x40
>>>>>      [<00000000aecb5389>] optee_enumerate_devices+0x84/0x2a0
>>>>>      [<000000003df18bf1>] optee_probe+0x674/0x6cc
>>>>>      [<000000003a4a534a>] platform_drv_probe+0x54/0xb0
>>>>>      [<000000000c51ce7d>] really_probe+0xe4/0x4d0
>>>>>      [<000000002f04c865>] driver_probe_device+0x58/0xc0
>>>>>      [<00000000b485397d>] device_driver_attach+0xc0/0xd0
>>>>>      [<00000000c835f0df>] __driver_attach+0x84/0x124
>>>>>      [<000000008e5a429c>] bus_for_each_dev+0x70/0xc0
>>>>>      [<000000001735e8a8>] driver_attach+0x24/0x30
>>>>>      [<000000006d94b04f>] bus_add_driver+0x104/0x1ec
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not a memory leak because we pass the share memory pointer to
>>>>> secure world and would get it from secure world before releasing it.
>>>>> How about if it's actually a memory leak caused by the secure world?
>>>>> An example being secure world just allocates kernel memory via OPTEE_SMC_RPC_FUNC_ALLOC and doesn't free it via OPTEE_SMC_RPC_FUNC_FREE.
>>>>> IMO, we need to cross-check optee-os if it's responsible for leaking kernel memory.
>>>> Hi sumit,
>>>>
>>>> You mean we need to check whether there is a real memleak,
>>>> If being secure world just allocate kernel memory via OPTEE_SMC_PRC_FUNC_ALLOC and until the end, there is no free
>>>> It via OPTEE_SMC_PRC_FUNC_FREE, then we should judge it as a memory leak, wo need to judge whether it is caused by secure os?
>>> Yes. AFAICT, optee-os should allocate shared memory to communicate
>>> with tee-supplicant. So once the communication is done, the underlying
>>> shared memory should be freed. I can't think of any scenario where
>>> optee-os should keep hold-off shared memory indefinitely.
>> I believe it can happen when OP-TEE's CFG_PREALLOC_RPC_CACHE is y. See
>> the config file [1] and the commit which introduced this config [2].
> Okay, I see the reasoning. So during the OP-TEE driver's lifetime, the
> RPC shared memory remains allocated. I guess that is done primarily
> for performance reasons.
>
> But still it doesn't feel appropriate that we term all RPC shm
> allocations as not leaking memory as we might miss obvious ones.
>
> Xiaolei,
>
> Can you once test with CFG_PREALLOC_RPC_CACHE=n while compiling
> optee-os and see if the observed memory leak disappears or not?
>
> -Sumit

Hi sumit


The version I am using has not increased the CFG_PREALLOC_RPC_CACHE

switch, I checked out to the latest version, but because of the need for

additional patches for the imx8 platform, I still have no way to test the

CFG_PREALLOC_RPC_CACHE=n situation


thanks

xiaolei

>
>> [1] https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/blob/3.15.0/mk/config.mk#L709
>> [2] https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/commit/8887663248ad
>>
>> --
>> Jerome