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]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:37:10 +0100
From: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Cc: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
	"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.

what about avoiding the page to be destroyed int this case? I do not like the
idea of overwriting the cpuid field for it.

Regards,
Lorenzo

> 
> > 
> > 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

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ