netdev - Re: [TEST] TCP MD5 vs kmemleak

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: <20240618074037.66789717@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 07:40:37 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [TEST] TCP MD5 vs kmemleak

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 04:24:08 +0100 Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> thanks for pinging,
> 
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 15:24, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dmitry!
> >
> > We added kmemleak checks to the selftest runners, TCP AO/MD5 tests seem
> > to trip it:
> >
> > https://netdev-3.bots.linux.dev/vmksft-tcp-ao-dbg/results/643761/4-unsigned-md5-ipv6/stdout
> >
> > Could you take a look? kmemleak is not infallible, it could be a false
> > positive.  
> 
> Sure, that seems somewhat interesting, albeit at this moment not from
> the TCP side :D
> 
> There is some pre-history to the related issue here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0000000000004d83170605e16003@google.com/
> 
> Which I was quite sure being addressed with what now is
> https://git.kernel.org/linus/5f98fd034ca6
> 
> But now that I look at that commit, I see that kvfree_call_rcu() is
> defined to __kvfree_call_rcu() under CONFIG_KASAN_GENERIC=n. And I
> don't see the same kmemleak_ignore() on that path.
> 
> To double-check, you don't have kasan enabled on netdev runners, right?

We do:

CONFIG_KASAN=y
CONFIG_KASAN_GENERIC=y

here's the full config:
https://netdev-3.bots.linux.dev/vmksft-tcp-ao-dbg/results/645202/config

> And then straight away to another thought: the leak-report that you
> get currently is ao_info, which should not happen if kfree_rcu() is
> properly fixed.
> But I'd expect kmemleak to be unhappy with ao keys freeing as well:
> they are currently released with call_rcu(&key->rcu,
> tcp_ao_key_free_rcu), which doesn't have a hint for kmemleak, too.
> 
> I'm going to take a look at it this week. Just to let you know, I'm
> also looking at fixing those somewhat rare flakes on tcp-ao counters
> checks (but that may be net-next material together with tracepoint
> selftests).

Let me add rcu@ to CC, perhaps folks there can guide us on known false
positives with KASAN + kmemleak?