[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99ac4b6-bea7-325e-1ca-cbf78982f5c1@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
To: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mptcp-next] x86/pm: fix false positive kmemleak report
in msr_build_context()
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Since commit e2a1256b17b1 ("x86/speculation: Restore speculation related MSRs during S3 resume"),
> kmemleak reports this issue:
>
> unreferenced object 0xffff888009cedc00 (size 256):
> comm "swapper/0", pid 1, jiffies 4294693823 (age 73.764s)
> hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 48 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ........H.......
> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
> backtrace:
> msr_build_context (include/linux/slab.h:621)
> pm_check_save_msr (arch/x86/power/cpu.c:520)
> do_one_initcall (init/main.c:1298)
> kernel_init_freeable (init/main.c:1370)
> kernel_init (init/main.c:1504)
> ret_from_fork (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:304)
>
> It is easy to reproduce it on my side:
>
> - boot the VM with a debug kernel config [1]
> - wait ~1 minute
> - start a kmemleak scan
>
> It seems kmemleak has an issue with the array allocated in
> msr_build_context() and assigned to a pointer in a static structure
> (saved_context.saved_msrs->array): there is no leak then.
>
> It looks like this is a limitation from kmemleak but that's alright,
> kmemleak_no_leak() can be used to avoid complaining about that.
>
> Please note that it looks like this issue is not new, e.g.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/9f1bb619-c4ee-21c4-a251-870bd4db04fa@lwfinger.net/
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/94e48fcd-1dbd-ebd2-4c91-f39941735909@molgen.mpg.de/
>
> But on my side, msr_build_context() is only used since:
>
> commit e2a1256b17b1 ("x86/speculation: Restore speculation related MSRs during S3 resume").
>
> Depending on their CPUs, others have probably the same issue since:
>
> commit 7a9c2dd08ead ("x86/pm: Introduce quirk framework to save/restore extra MSR registers around suspend/resume"),
>
> hence the 'Fixes' tag here below to help with the backports. But I
> understand if someone says the origin of this issue is more on
> kmemleak's side. What is unclear to me is why this issue was not seen by
> other people and CIs. Maybe the kernel config [1]?
>
> [1] https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/files/8531660/kmemleak-cpu-sched-bisect.kconfig.txt
>
Hi Matthieu -
It looks like the root cause here is alignment within the packed struct
saved_context (from suspend_64.h). Kmemleak only searches for pointers
that are aligned, but pahole shows that the saved_msrs struct member and
all members after it in the structure are unaligned:
(gcc 11.2.1, x86_64)
struct saved_context {
struct pt_regs regs; /* 0 168 */
/* --- cacheline 2 boundary (128 bytes) was 40 bytes ago --- */
u16 ds; /* 168 2 */
u16 es; /* 170 2 */
u16 fs; /* 172 2 */
u16 gs; /* 174 2 */
long unsigned int kernelmode_gs_base; /* 176 8 */
long unsigned int usermode_gs_base; /* 184 8 */
/* --- cacheline 3 boundary (192 bytes) --- */
long unsigned int fs_base; /* 192 8 */
long unsigned int cr0; /* 200 8 */
long unsigned int cr2; /* 208 8 */
long unsigned int cr3; /* 216 8 */
long unsigned int cr4; /* 224 8 */
u64 misc_enable; /* 232 8 */
bool misc_enable_saved; /* 240 1 */
/* Note odd offset values for the remainder of this struct vvv */
struct saved_msrs saved_msrs; /* 241 16 */
/* --- cacheline 4 boundary (256 bytes) was 1 bytes ago --- */
long unsigned int efer; /* 257 8 */
u16 gdt_pad; /* 265 2 */
struct desc_ptr gdt_desc; /* 267 10 */
u16 idt_pad; /* 277 2 */
struct desc_ptr idt; /* 279 10 */
u16 ldt; /* 289 2 */
u16 tss; /* 291 2 */
long unsigned int tr; /* 293 8 */
long unsigned int safety; /* 301 8 */
long unsigned int return_address; /* 309 8 */
/* size: 317, cachelines: 5, members: 25 */
/* last cacheline: 61 bytes */
} __attribute__((__packed__));
If I move misc_enable_saved to the end of the struct declaration,
saved_msrs fits in before the cacheline 4 boundary and the kmemleak
warning goes away. The comment above the saved_context declaration says to
check wakeup_64.S and __save/__restore_processor_state() if the struct is
modified - looks like it's the members before misc_enable that must be
carefully placed.
So far I've only tried this on my local machine, I'll work on getting more
thorough validation.
Looks like struct saved_context in suspend_32.h has similar odd alignment.
- Mat
> Fixes: 7a9c2dd08ead ("x86/pm: Introduce quirk framework to save/restore extra MSR registers around suspend/resume")
> Closes: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/issues/268
> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
> ---
> arch/x86/power/cpu.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/power/cpu.c b/arch/x86/power/cpu.c
> index 3822666fb73d..1467c6d1a966 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/power/cpu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/power/cpu.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> #include <linux/tboot.h>
> #include <linux/dmi.h>
> #include <linux/pgtable.h>
> +#include <linux/kmemleak.h>
>
> #include <asm/proto.h>
> #include <asm/mtrr.h>
> @@ -413,6 +414,9 @@ static int msr_build_context(const u32 *msr_id, const int num)
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
>
> + /* The pointer is going to be stored in static struct (saved_context) */
> + kmemleak_not_leak(msr_array);
> +
> if (saved_msrs->array) {
> /*
> * Multiple callbacks can invoke this function, so copy any
> --
> 2.34.1
>
>
--
Mat Martineau
Intel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists