| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4b001ce6-b35d-3ad1-b757-f5f6baca7b51@alu.unizg.hr>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 14:10:00 +0100
From: Mirsad Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
Subject: Re: INFO: REPRODUCED: memory leak in gpio device in 6.2-rc6
On 2/16/23 15:16, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:45 PM Mirsad Goran Todorovac
> <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr> wrote:
>>
>> On 15.2.2023. 11:53, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 07:19:16PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>>>> On 12. 02. 2023. 15:19, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 08:55:24PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>>>>>> On 31. 01. 2023. 10:36, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>>>>>>> I came across this memory leak apparently in the GPIO device driver.
>>>>>>> It is still present in 6.2-rc6 release candidate kernel (just ran kselftest).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a vanilla Torvalds tree kernel with MGLRU and KMEMLEAK (obviously)
>>>>>>> enabled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you think this bug is significant, I can attempt the bug bisect in the
>>>>>>> environment that triggered it (Lenovo LENOVO_MT_10TX_BU_Lenovo_FM_V530S-07ICB)
>>>>>>> with BIOS M22KT49A from 11/10/2022 and AlmaLinux 8.7.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is the /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak output:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> unreferenced object 0xffff9e67ad71f160 (size 32):
>>>>>>> comm "gpio-sim.sh", pid 208926, jiffies 4372229685 (age 2101.564s)
>>>>>>> hex dump (first 32 bytes):
>>>>>>> 67 70 69 6f 2d 73 69 6d 2e 30 2d 6e 6f 64 65 30 gpio-sim.0-node0
>>>>>>> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>>>>>>> backtrace:
>>>>>>> [<0000000098bf3d1b>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0x91/0x320
>>>>>>> [<00000000da3205c5>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x1bf/0x2b0
>>>>>>> [<00000000aa51a58a>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x55/0x140
>>>>>>> [<00000000bd682ecc>] kvasprintf+0x6b/0xd0
>>>>>>> [<00000000a3431d55>] kasprintf+0x4e/0x70
>>>>>>> [<00000000f52d2629>] gpio_sim_device_config_live_store+0x401/0x59d [gpio_sim]
>>>>>>> [<00000000673fc6df>] configfs_write_iter+0xcc/0x130
>>>>>>> [<000000001d5d0829>] vfs_write+0x2b4/0x3d0
>>>>>>> [<00000000d2336251>] ksys_write+0x61/0xe0
>>>>>>> [<00000000f7015bb1>] __x64_sys_write+0x1a/0x20
>>>>>>> [<000000008ac743d2>] do_syscall_64+0x58/0x80
>>>>>>> [<000000004d7b7d50>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
>>>
>>>> Sorry, but unfortunately this patch didn't fix the memleak. Please see the result:
>>>
>>> Thank you for give a try!
>>
>> No sweat. It was worth the effort.
>>
>>> Yeah, that's why I put that I'm skeptical, because while patch is correct per
>>> se it wouldn't prevent the initial leakage (it seems it happens due to other
>>> circumstances).
>>
>> I must admit that is looks like hieroglyphs to me. My learning curve had not
>> yet reached that point of debugging memory leaks in the kernel drivers ...
>>
>>>> root@...vin-IdeaPad-3-15ITL6:/home/marvin/linux/kernel/linux_torvalds/tools/testing/selftests/gpio# echo clear > /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak
>>>> root@...vin-IdeaPad-3-15ITL6:/home/marvin/linux/kernel/linux_torvalds/tools/testing/selftests/gpio# time ./gpio-sim.sh
>>>> trap: SIGTERM: bad trap
>>>> 1. chip_name and dev_name attributes
>>>> 1.1. Chip name is communicated to user
>>>> 1.2. chip_name returns 'none' if the chip is still pending
>>>> 1.3. Device name is communicated to user
>>>> 2. Creating and configuring simulated chips
>>>> 2.1. Default number of lines is 1
>>>> 2.2. Number of lines can be specified
>>>> 2.3. Label can be set
>>>> 2.4. Label can be left empty
>>>> 2.5. Line names can be configured
>>>> 2.6. Line config can remain unused if offset is greater than number of lines
>>>> 2.7. Line configfs directory names are sanitized
>>>> 2.8. Multiple chips can be created
>>>> 2.9. Can't modify settings when chip is live
>>>> 2.10. Can't create line items when chip is live
>>>> 2.11. Probe errors are propagated to user-space
>>>> 2.12. Cannot enable a chip without any GPIO banks
>>>> 2.13. Duplicate chip labels are not allowed
>>>> 2.14. Lines can be hogged
>>>> 3. Controlling simulated chips
>>>> 3.1. Pull can be set over sysfs
>>>> 3.2. Pull can be read from sysfs
>>>> 3.3. Incorrect input in sysfs is rejected
>>>> 3.4. Can't write to value
>>>> 4. Simulated GPIO chips are functional
>>>> 4.1. Values can be read from sysfs
>>>> 4.2. Bias settings work correctly
>>>> GPIO gpio-sim test PASS
>>>>
>>>> real 0m1.120s
>>>> user 0m0.283s
>>>> sys 0m0.842s
>>>> root@...vin-IdeaPad-3-15ITL6:/home/marvin/linux/kernel/linux_torvalds/tools/testing/selftests/gpio# echo scan > /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak
>>>> root@...vin-IdeaPad-3-15ITL6:/home/marvin/linux/kernel/linux_torvalds/tools/testing/selftests/gpio# cat /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak
>>>> unreferenced object 0xffff91f019219660 (size 32):
>>>> comm "gpio-sim.sh", pid 11223, jiffies 4295028142 (age 87.304s)
>>>> hex dump (first 32 bytes):
>>>> 67 70 69 6f 2d 73 69 6d 2e 30 2d 6e 6f 64 65 30 gpio-sim.0-node0
>>>> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
>>>> backtrace:
>>>> [<ffffffff86fcd408>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x1d8/0x330
>>>> [<ffffffff86f4c271>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x51/0xd0
>>>> [<ffffffff872fb359>] kvasprintf+0x69/0xd0
>>>> [<ffffffff872fb4ce>] kasprintf+0x4e/0x70
>>>> [<ffffffffc1864553>] gpio_sim_device_config_live_store+0x483/0x6b5 [gpio_sim]
>>>> [<ffffffff870dde9c>] configfs_write_iter+0xcc/0x130
>>>> [<ffffffff87016869>] vfs_write+0x1f9/0x3b0
>>>> [<ffffffff87016dab>] ksys_write+0x6b/0xf0
>>>> [<ffffffff87016e59>] __x64_sys_write+0x19/0x20
>>>> [<ffffffff87b91188>] do_syscall_64+0x58/0x80
>>>> [<ffffffff87c000aa>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
>>>> root@...vin-IdeaPad-3-15ITL6:/home/marvin/linux/kernel/linux_torvalds/tools/testing/selftests/gpio# uname -rms
>>>> Linux 6.2.0-rc8-lru-km-andy-00015-gf6feea56f66d-dirty x86_64
>>>> root@...vin-IdeaPad-3-15ITL6:/home/marvin/linux/kernel/linux_torvalds/tools/testing/selftests/gpio#
>>>>
>>>> I can verify that I build the right patch:
>>>>
>>>> marvin@...vin-IdeaPad-3-15ITL6:~/linux/kernel/linux_torvalds$ git diff
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-sim.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-sim.c
>>>> index 60514bc5454f..7f79e49b23d7 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-sim.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-sim.c
>>>> @@ -954,9 +954,9 @@ static void gpio_sim_device_deactivate_unlocked(struct gpio_sim_device *dev)
>>>>
>>>> swnode = dev_fwnode(&dev->pdev->dev);
>>>> platform_device_unregister(dev->pdev);
>>>> + gpio_sim_remove_hogs(dev);
>>>> gpio_sim_remove_swnode_recursive(swnode);
>>>> dev->pdev = NULL;
>>>> - gpio_sim_remove_hogs(dev);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static ssize_t
>>>> marvin@...vin-IdeaPad-3-15ITL6:~/linux/kernel/linux_torvalds$
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, I could try to bisect if you think it's prudent to try that.
>>>> But first I need a stroll after this kernel build :-)
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that knowing when the bug was introduced might help find the culprit?
> Thanks for the report Mirsad, just sent out a fix.
Hi, Bart,
It is really nothing. The reproducer shows that the leak is apparently gone.
As Mr. McKenney once said, a bunch of monkeys with keyboard could
have done it in a considerable number of trials and errors ;-)
But here I have something that could potentially leak as well. I could not devise a
reproducer due to the leak being lightly triggered only in extreme memory contention.
See it for yourself:
drivers/gpio/gpio-sim.c:
301 static int gpio_sim_setup_sysfs(struct gpio_sim_chip *chip)
302 {
303 struct device_attribute *val_dev_attr, *pull_dev_attr;
304 struct gpio_sim_attribute *val_attr, *pull_attr;
305 unsigned int num_lines = chip->gc.ngpio;
306 struct device *dev = chip->gc.parent;
307 struct attribute_group *attr_group;
308 struct attribute **attrs;
309 int i, ret;
310
311 chip->attr_groups = devm_kcalloc(dev, sizeof(*chip->attr_groups),
312 num_lines + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
313 if (!chip->attr_groups)
314 return -ENOMEM;
315
316 for (i = 0; i < num_lines; i++) {
317 attr_group = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*attr_group), GFP_KERNEL);
318 attrs = devm_kcalloc(dev, GPIO_SIM_NUM_ATTRS, sizeof(*attrs),
319 GFP_KERNEL);
320 val_attr = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*val_attr), GFP_KERNEL);
321 pull_attr = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pull_attr), GFP_KERNEL);
322 if (!attr_group || !attrs || !val_attr || !pull_attr)
323 return -ENOMEM;
324
325 attr_group->name = devm_kasprintf(dev, GFP_KERNEL,
326 "sim_gpio%u", i);
327 if (!attr_group->name)
328 return -ENOMEM;
Apparently, if the memory allocation only partially succeeds, in the theoretical case
that the system is close to its kernel memory exhaustion, `return -ENOMEM` would not
free the partially succeeded allocs, would it?
To explain it better, I tried a version that is not yet full doing "all or nothing"
memory allocation for the gpio-sim driver, because I am not that familiar with the
driver internals.
I give this just as an illustration to what I mean to say (one line of code speaks
like thousand words):
301 static int gpio_sim_setup_sysfs(struct gpio_sim_chip *chip)
302 {
303 struct device_attribute *val_dev_attr, *pull_dev_attr;
304 struct gpio_sim_attribute *val_attr, *pull_attr;
305 unsigned int num_lines = chip->gc.ngpio;
306 struct device *dev = chip->gc.parent;
307 struct attribute_group *attr_group;
308 struct attribute **attrs;
309 int i, ret;
310
311 chip->attr_groups = devm_kcalloc(dev, sizeof(*chip->attr_groups),
312 num_lines + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
313 if (!chip->attr_groups)
314 return -ENOMEM;
315
316 for (i = 0; i < num_lines; i++) {
317 attr_group = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*attr_group), GFP_KERNEL);
318 attrs = devm_kcalloc(dev, GPIO_SIM_NUM_ATTRS, sizeof(*attrs),
319 GFP_KERNEL);
320 val_attr = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*val_attr), GFP_KERNEL);
321 pull_attr = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pull_attr), GFP_KERNEL);
322 if (!attr_group || !attrs || !val_attr || !pull_attr) {
323 if (attr_group)
324 devm_kfree(dev, attr_group);
325 if (attrs)
326 devm_kfree(dev, attrs);
327 if (val_attr)
328 devm_kfree(dev, val_attr);
329 if (pull_attr)
330 devm_kfree(dev, pull_attr);
331 return -ENOMEM;
332 }
333
334 attr_group->name = devm_kasprintf(dev, GFP_KERNEL,
335 "sim_gpio%u", i);
336 if (!attr_group->name) {
337 devm_kfree(dev, attr_group);
338 devm_kfree(dev, attrs);
339 devm_kfree(dev, val_attr);
340 devm_kfree(dev, pull_attr);
341 return -ENOMEM;
342 }
343
344 val_attr->offset = pull_attr->offset = i;
This is, of course, far from perfect, and it seems that the driver will still leak
memory in case of partially successful allocation because of the
for (i = 0; i < num_lines; i++) { ... } loop. :-/
I hope this makes any sense to you.
Thanks,
Mirsad
--
Mirsad Goran Todorovac
Sistem inženjer
Grafički fakultet | Akademija likovnih umjetnosti
Sveučilište u Zagrebu
System engineer
Faculty of Graphic Arts | Academy of Fine Arts
University of Zagreb, Republic of Croatia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists