linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm: shrinker: avoid memleak in alloc_shrinker

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]

Message-ID: <1dc9acbd-351f-4755-8c56-d3d77aaccfb2@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 17:04:24 +0800
From: chenridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
To: Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, Anshuman Khandual
	<anshuman.khandual@....com>, Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com>
CC: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <david@...morbit.com>,
	<zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>, <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<wangweiyang2@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: shrinker: avoid memleak in alloc_shrinker_info



On 2024/10/14 16:43, Muchun Song wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 14, 2024, at 16:13, Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/24 08:53, Chen Ridong wrote:
>>> From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
>>>
>>> A memleak was found as bellow:
>>>
>>> unreferenced object 0xffff8881010d2a80 (size 32):
>>>   comm "mkdir", pid 1559, jiffies 4294932666
>>>   hex dump (first 32 bytes):
>>>     00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
>>>     40 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  @...............
>>>   backtrace (crc 2e7ef6fa):
>>>     [<ffffffff81372754>] __kmalloc_node_noprof+0x394/0x470
>>>     [<ffffffff813024ab>] alloc_shrinker_info+0x7b/0x1a0
>>>     [<ffffffff813b526a>] mem_cgroup_css_online+0x11a/0x3b0
>>>     [<ffffffff81198dd9>] online_css+0x29/0xa0
>>>     [<ffffffff811a243d>] cgroup_apply_control_enable+0x20d/0x360
>>>     [<ffffffff811a5728>] cgroup_mkdir+0x168/0x5f0
>>>     [<ffffffff8148543e>] kernfs_iop_mkdir+0x5e/0x90
>>>     [<ffffffff813dbb24>] vfs_mkdir+0x144/0x220
>>>     [<ffffffff813e1c97>] do_mkdirat+0x87/0x130
>>>     [<ffffffff813e1de9>] __x64_sys_mkdir+0x49/0x70
>>>     [<ffffffff81f8c928>] do_syscall_64+0x68/0x140
>>>     [<ffffffff8200012f>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
>>>
>>> In the alloc_shrinker_info function, when shrinker_unit_alloc return
>>> err, the info won't be freed. Just fix it.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 307bececcd12 ("mm: shrinker: add a secondary array for shrinker_info::{map, nr_deferred}")
>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
>>> ---
>>> mm/shrinker.c | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/shrinker.c b/mm/shrinker.c
>>> index dc5d2a6fcfc4..92270413190d 100644
>>> --- a/mm/shrinker.c
>>> +++ b/mm/shrinker.c
>>> @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ int alloc_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>>>
>>> err:
>>> 	mutex_unlock(&shrinker_mutex);
>>> + 	kvfree(info);
>>> 	free_shrinker_info(memcg);
>>> 	return -ENOMEM;
>>> }
>>
>> There are two scenarios when "goto err:" gets called
>>
>> - When shrinker_info allocations fails, no kvfree() is required
>> 	- but after this change kvfree() would be called even
>> 	  when the allocation had failed originally, which does
>>   	  not sound right
> 
> Yes. In this case, @info is NULL and kvfree could handle NULL.
> It seems strange but the final behaviour correct.
> 
>>
>> - shrinker_unit_alloc() fails, kvfree() is actually required
>>
>> I guess kvfree() should be called just after shrinker_unit_alloc()
>> fails but before calling into "goto err".
> 
> We could do it like this, which avoids ambiguity (if someone ignores
> that kvfree could handle NULL). Something like:
> 
> --- a/mm/shrinker.c
> +++ b/mm/shrinker.c
> @@ -88,13 +88,14 @@ int alloc_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>                          goto err;
>                  info->map_nr_max = shrinker_nr_max;
>                  if (shrinker_unit_alloc(info, NULL, nid))
> -                       goto err;
> +                       goto free;
>                  rcu_assign_pointer(memcg->nodeinfo[nid]->shrinker_info, info);
>          }
>          mutex_unlock(&shrinker_mutex);
> 
>          return ret;
> -
> +free:
> +       kvfree(info);
>   err:
>          mutex_unlock(&shrinker_mutex);
>          free_shrinker_info(memcg);
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>>
>> But curious, should not both kvzalloc_node()/kvfree() be avoided
>> while inside mutex lock to avoid possible lockdep issues ?
> 
How about:

diff --git a/mm/shrinker.c b/mm/shrinker.c
index dc5d2a6fcfc4..7baee7f00497 100644
--- a/mm/shrinker.c
+++ b/mm/shrinker.c
@@ -87,9 +87,9 @@ int alloc_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
                  if (!info)
                          goto err;
                  info->map_nr_max = shrinker_nr_max;
+               rcu_assign_pointer(memcg->nodeinfo[nid]->shrinker_info, 
info);
                  if (shrinker_unit_alloc(info, NULL, nid))
                          goto err;
-               rcu_assign_pointer(memcg->nodeinfo[nid]->shrinker_info, 
info);
          }
          mutex_unlock(&shrinker_mutex);

I think this is concise.

Best regards,
Ridong