netdev - Re: [V2][PATCH] cgroup: fix memory leak caused by missing cgroup_bpf

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:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 18:06:28 +0800
From:   Quanyang Wang <quanyang.wang@...driver.com>
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        mkoutny@...e.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [V2][PATCH] cgroup: fix memory leak caused by missing
 cgroup_bpf_offline

Hi Ming,

On 10/18/21 5:02 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 03:56:23PM +0800, quanyang.wang@...driver.com wrote:
>> From: Quanyang Wang <quanyang.wang@...driver.com>
>>
>> When enabling CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF, kmemleak can be observed by running
>> the command as below:
>>
>>      $mount -t cgroup -o none,name=foo cgroup cgroup/
>>      $umount cgroup/
>>
>> unreferenced object 0xc3585c40 (size 64):
>>    comm "mount", pid 425, jiffies 4294959825 (age 31.990s)
>>    hex dump (first 32 bytes):
>>      01 00 00 80 84 8c 28 c0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ......(.........
>>      00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 6c 43 a0 c3 00 00 00 00  ........lC......
>>    backtrace:
>>      [<e95a2f9e>] cgroup_bpf_inherit+0x44/0x24c
>>      [<1f03679c>] cgroup_setup_root+0x174/0x37c
>>      [<ed4b0ac5>] cgroup1_get_tree+0x2c0/0x4a0
>>      [<f85b12fd>] vfs_get_tree+0x24/0x108
>>      [<f55aec5c>] path_mount+0x384/0x988
>>      [<e2d5e9cd>] do_mount+0x64/0x9c
>>      [<208c9cfe>] sys_mount+0xfc/0x1f4
>>      [<06dd06e0>] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x48
>>      [<a8308cb3>] 0xbeb4daa8
>>
>> This is because that since the commit 2b0d3d3e4fcf ("percpu_ref: reduce
>> memory footprint of percpu_ref in fast path") root_cgrp->bpf.refcnt.data
>> is allocated by the function percpu_ref_init in cgroup_bpf_inherit which
>> is called by cgroup_setup_root when mounting, but not freed along with
>> root_cgrp when umounting. Adding cgroup_bpf_offline which calls
>> percpu_ref_kill to cgroup_kill_sb can free root_cgrp->bpf.refcnt.data in
>> umount path.
>>
>> This patch also fixes the commit 4bfc0bb2c60e ("bpf: decouple the lifetime
>> of cgroup_bpf from cgroup itself"). A cgroup_bpf_offline is needed to do a
>> cleanup that frees the resources which are allocated by cgroup_bpf_inherit
>> in cgroup_setup_root.
>>
>> And inside cgroup_bpf_offline, cgroup_get() is at the beginning and
>> cgroup_put is at the end of cgroup_bpf_release which is called by
>> cgroup_bpf_offline. So cgroup_bpf_offline can keep the balance of
>> cgroup's refcount.
>>
>> Fixes: 2b0d3d3e4fcf ("percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of percpu_ref in fast path")
> 
> If I understand correctly, cgroup_bpf_release() won't be called without
> your patch. So anything allocated in cgroup_bpf_inherit() will be
> leaked?
No, for now cgroup_bpf_release is called to release bpf.refcnt.data of 
the cgroup which is not root_cgroup. Only root_cgroup's bpf data is leaked.

For non-root cgroup:
cgroup_mkdir
-> cgroup_create
-->cgroup_bpf_inherit(cgrp_A)
cgroup_rmdir
->cgroup_destroy_locked()
-->cgroup_bpf_offline(cgrp_A)
So for non-root cgroup, there is no memory leak.


For root cgroup:
cgroup_setup_root
->cgroup_bpf_inherit(root_cgrp)
cgroup_kill_sb:
-> (Here should be call cgroup_bpf_offline, or else leak occurs)

Thanks,
Quanyang


> 
> If that is true, 'Fixes: 2b0d3d3e4fcf' looks misleading, cause people has to
> backport your patch if 4bfc0bb2c60e is applied. Meantime, this fix isn't
> needed if 4bfc0bb2c60e isn't merged.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Ming
>