Re: [PATCH] optee: Suppress false positive kmemleak report in optee_handle_rpc()

[wangxiaolei <xiaolei.wang@windriver.com>]

On 12/14/21 3:29 PM, Sumit Garg wrote:
> [Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 12:41, wangxiaolei <xiaolei.wang@windriver.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/13/21 5:04 PM, Sumit Garg wrote:
>>> [Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]
>>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 14:25, wangxiaolei <xiaolei.wang@windriver.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/21 5:38 PM, Sumit Garg wrote:
>>>>> [Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 at 13:40, Jerome Forissier <jerome@forissier.org> wrote:
>>>>>> +CC Jens, Etienne
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/10/21 06:00, Sumit Garg wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 at 09:42, Wang, Xiaolei <Xiaolei.Wang@windriver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 7:41 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Wang, Xiaolei <Xiaolei.Wang@windriver.com>
>>>>>>>> Cc: jens.wiklander@linaro.org; op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] optee: Suppress false positive kmemleak report in optee_handle_rpc()
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 17:35, Xiaolei Wang <xiaolei.wang@windriver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> We observed the following kmemleak report:
>>>>>>>>> unreferenced object 0xffff000007904500 (size 128):
>>>>>>>>>      comm "swapper/0", pid 1, jiffies 4294892671 (age 44.036s)
>>>>>>>>>      hex dump (first 32 bytes):
>>>>>>>>>        00 47 90 07 00 00 ff ff 60 00 c0 ff 00 00 00 00  .G......`.......
>>>>>>>>>        60 00 80 13 00 80 ff ff a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  `...............
>>>>>>>>>      backtrace:
>>>>>>>>>        [<000000004c12b1c7>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x1ac/0x2f4
>>>>>>>>>        [<000000005d23eb4f>] tee_shm_alloc+0x78/0x230
>>>>>>>>>        [<00000000794dd22c>] optee_handle_rpc+0x60/0x6f0
>>>>>>>>>        [<00000000d9f7c52d>] optee_do_call_with_arg+0x17c/0x1dc
>>>>>>>>>        [<00000000c35884da>] optee_open_session+0x128/0x1ec
>>>>>>>>>        [<000000001748f2ff>] tee_client_open_session+0x28/0x40
>>>>>>>>>        [<00000000aecb5389>] optee_enumerate_devices+0x84/0x2a0
>>>>>>>>>        [<000000003df18bf1>] optee_probe+0x674/0x6cc
>>>>>>>>>        [<000000003a4a534a>] platform_drv_probe+0x54/0xb0
>>>>>>>>>        [<000000000c51ce7d>] really_probe+0xe4/0x4d0
>>>>>>>>>        [<000000002f04c865>] driver_probe_device+0x58/0xc0
>>>>>>>>>        [<00000000b485397d>] device_driver_attach+0xc0/0xd0
>>>>>>>>>        [<00000000c835f0df>] __driver_attach+0x84/0x124
>>>>>>>>>        [<000000008e5a429c>] bus_for_each_dev+0x70/0xc0
>>>>>>>>>        [<000000001735e8a8>] driver_attach+0x24/0x30
>>>>>>>>>        [<000000006d94b04f>] bus_add_driver+0x104/0x1ec
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is not a memory leak because we pass the share memory pointer to
>>>>>>>>> secure world and would get it from secure world before releasing it.
>>>>>>>>> How about if it's actually a memory leak caused by the secure world?
>>>>>>>>> An example being secure world just allocates kernel memory via OPTEE_SMC_RPC_FUNC_ALLOC and doesn't free it via OPTEE_SMC_RPC_FUNC_FREE.
>>>>>>>>> IMO, we need to cross-check optee-os if it's responsible for leaking kernel memory.
>>>>>>>> Hi sumit,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean we need to check whether there is a real memleak,
>>>>>>>> If being secure world just allocate kernel memory via OPTEE_SMC_PRC_FUNC_ALLOC and until the end, there is no free
>>>>>>>> It via OPTEE_SMC_PRC_FUNC_FREE, then we should judge it as a memory leak, wo need to judge whether it is caused by secure os?
>>>>>>> Yes. AFAICT, optee-os should allocate shared memory to communicate
>>>>>>> with tee-supplicant. So once the communication is done, the underlying
>>>>>>> shared memory should be freed. I can't think of any scenario where
>>>>>>> optee-os should keep hold-off shared memory indefinitely.
>>>>>> I believe it can happen when OP-TEE's CFG_PREALLOC_RPC_CACHE is y. See
>>>>>> the config file [1] and the commit which introduced this config [2].
>>>>> Okay, I see the reasoning. So during the OP-TEE driver's lifetime, the
>>>>> RPC shared memory remains allocated. I guess that is done primarily
>>>>> for performance reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> But still it doesn't feel appropriate that we term all RPC shm
>>>>> allocations as not leaking memory as we might miss obvious ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Xiaolei,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you once test with CFG_PREALLOC_RPC_CACHE=n while compiling
>>>>> optee-os and see if the observed memory leak disappears or not?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Sumit
>>>> Hi sumit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The version I am using has not increased the CFG_PREALLOC_RPC_CACHE
>>>>
>>>> switch, I checked out to the latest version, but because of the need for
>>>>
>>>> additional patches for the imx8 platform, I still have no way to test the
>>>>
>>>> CFG_PREALLOC_RPC_CACHE=n situation
>>>>
>>> Can you just try to backport this [1] patch to your imx8 optee-os tree and test?
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/commit/8887663248ad
>> Hi sumit
>>
>> I upgraded optee-os from version 3.2.0 to 3.13.0, and the kernel did not
>> detect this problem.
> Can you check if CFG_TEE_CORE_EMBED_INTERNAL_TESTS is enabled in
> optee-os version 3.13.0? As we would require atleast one RPC prealloc
> SHM invocation from OP-TEE for kmemleak to detect the problem.


Hi

CFG_TEE_CORE_EMBED_INTERNAL_TESTS is enabled
,I can see the "*.o" files compiled from the core/pta/tests directory

thanks
xiaolei


>
> -Sumit
>
>> I have not set CFG_PREALLOC_RPC_CACHE to n. This should be a problem
>> that occurs when compatible
>>
>> with lower versions.
>>
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> xiaolei
>>
>>> -Sumit
>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>>
>>>> xiaolei
>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/blob/3.15.0/mk/config.mk#L709
>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/commit/8887663248ad
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jerome