linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] page_pool: disable direct recycling based on pool->cpuid on destroy

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: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:12:41 +0100
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>, "Lorenzo
 Bianconi" <lorenzo@...nel.org>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] page_pool: disable direct recycling based on
 pool->cpuid on destroy

From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:05:30 +0100

> Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com> writes:
> 
>> Now that direct recycling is performed basing on pool->cpuid when set,
>> memory leaks are possible:
>>
>> 1. A pool is destroyed.
>> 2. Alloc cache is emptied (it's done only once).
>> 3. pool->cpuid is still set.
>> 4. napi_pp_put_page() does direct recycling basing on pool->cpuid.
>> 5. Now alloc cache is not empty, but it won't ever be freed.
> 
> Did you actually manage to trigger this? pool->cpuid is only set for the
> system page pool instance which is never destroyed; so this seems a very
> theoretical concern?

To both Lorenzo and Toke:

Yes, system page pools are never destroyed, but we might latter use
cpuid in non-persistent PPs. Then there will be memory leaks.
I was able to trigger this by creating bpf/test_run page_pools with the
cpuid set to test direct recycling of live frames.

> 
> I guess we could still do this in case we find other uses for setting
> the cpuid; I don't think the addition of the READ_ONCE() will have any
> measurable overhead on the common arches?

READ_ONCE() is cheap, but I thought it's worth mentioning in the
commitmsg anyway :)

> 
> -Toke
> 

Thanks,
Olek