From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ADF9156F27 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2024 09:38:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728898694; cv=none; b=DqNXx26F1aBRx67BdfZ+6zqeBg7Y2DOmBIXliFaT+CPr6fdbYl/I94kgm/9rA8WK/Brj4Exr47wQERR/sv75SKF2oBwEMbpBZRQSx45wF/t3oLOClUTKOLdO4MWgwp5sCSv3UGDDYpLsQqyWBPPjRQLzLcukvNCCU+PHhHBkYVQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728898694; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7mLZXShPz6ctC59swvlAb/zB3kE07wrVSdzufhFdG3c=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Z+CIANNtelnMEpXhpcHxqpa8ZeybVe6IhxDTHBbUs6NRORNREGJ8u7d2sJMfKryNJL3PqMXa3A+CZhSkb68CF7XDRguFmTL/9czbU1Z7K2swUH1ypkBiPfaXfPoNIPzoq8t1/PWe5aUbBYdcy5IxeCHUw0oQhNP0CzaE+cqjjwE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.105]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4XRsXv1qFzzkWnm; Mon, 14 Oct 2024 17:35:43 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemd100013.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.221.188.163]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53C23140137; Mon, 14 Oct 2024 17:38:09 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.109.79] (10.67.109.79) by kwepemd100013.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.163) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1258.34; Mon, 14 Oct 2024 17:38:08 +0800 Message-ID: <95d5b806-d912-4a63-add6-ac115e8f181d@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 17:38:07 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: shrinker: avoid memleak in alloc_shrinker_info To: Muchun Song CC: Anshuman Khandual , Chen Ridong , , , , , , , References: <20241014032336.482088-1-chenridong@huaweicloud.com> <178A7AC8-0BDA-42CA-86B2-E1C13F3E1E8B@linux.dev> <1dc9acbd-351f-4755-8c56-d3d77aaccfb2@huawei.com> Content-Language: en-US From: chenridong In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.179) To kwepemd100013.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.163) On 2024/10/14 17:20, Muchun Song wrote: > > >> On Oct 14, 2024, at 17:04, chenridong wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2024/10/14 16:43, Muchun Song wrote: >>>> On Oct 14, 2024, at 16:13, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/14/24 08:53, Chen Ridong wrote: >>>>> From: Chen Ridong >>>>> >>>>> 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): >>>>> [] __kmalloc_node_noprof+0x394/0x470 >>>>> [] alloc_shrinker_info+0x7b/0x1a0 >>>>> [] mem_cgroup_css_online+0x11a/0x3b0 >>>>> [] online_css+0x29/0xa0 >>>>> [] cgroup_apply_control_enable+0x20d/0x360 >>>>> [] cgroup_mkdir+0x168/0x5f0 >>>>> [] kernfs_iop_mkdir+0x5e/0x90 >>>>> [] vfs_mkdir+0x144/0x220 >>>>> [] do_mkdirat+0x87/0x130 >>>>> [] __x64_sys_mkdir+0x49/0x70 >>>>> [] do_syscall_64+0x68/0x140 >>>>> [] 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 >>>>> --- >>>>> 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); > > No. We should make sure the @info is fully initialized before others > could see it. That's why rcu_assign_pointer is used here. > Thank you, it seems that 'goto free' is a better choice. Will update. Thanks, Ridong >> >> I think this is concise. >> >> Best regards, >> Ridong >