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]

Message-ID: <a84aedfe-6ecf-7f48-505e-a11acfd6204c@windriver.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:41:14 +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 8:59 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 06:06:28PM +0800, Quanyang Wang wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> You mean that cgroup_bpf_inherit() allocates nothing for root_cgroup?
Yes, cgroup_bpf_inherit allocates something for root_cgroup.

The earlier commit 4bfc0bb2c60e ("bpf: decouple the lifetime of 
cgroup_bpf from cgroup itself") introduces an imbalance that call 
cgroup_bpf_inherit(&root_cgroup) but not call 
cgroup_bpf_offline(&root_cgroup). But there was no memory leak here.

When the commit 2b0d3d3e4fcf ("percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of 
percpu_ref in fast path") applies, some data is allocated for 
root_cgroup and not released with root_cgroup, and memory leak is observed.

So I add 2 "Fixes tags" here to indicate that 2 commits introduce two 
different issues.

But it seems that 2 "Fixes tags" is misleading now.
So maybe just fix earlier commit 4bfc0bb2c60e which introduces imbalance?

Thanks,
Quanyang
> 
> If yes, I agree you can add 'Fixes: 2b0d3d3e4fcf', otherwise please
> remove it.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Ming
>