> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:05:30 +0100
> 
> > Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com> writes:
> > 
> >> Now that direct recycling is performed basing on pool->cpuid when set,
> >> memory leaks are possible:
> >>
> >> 1. A pool is destroyed.
> >> 2. Alloc cache is emptied (it's done only once).
> >> 3. pool->cpuid is still set.
> >> 4. napi_pp_put_page() does direct recycling basing on pool->cpuid.
> >> 5. Now alloc cache is not empty, but it won't ever be freed.
> > 
> > Did you actually manage to trigger this? pool->cpuid is only set for the
> > system page pool instance which is never destroyed; so this seems a very
> > theoretical concern?
> 
> To both Lorenzo and Toke:
> 
> Yes, system page pools are never destroyed, but we might latter use
> cpuid in non-persistent PPs. Then there will be memory leaks.
> I was able to trigger this by creating bpf/test_run page_pools with the
> cpuid set to test direct recycling of live frames.

what about avoiding the page to be destroyed int this case? I do not like the
idea of overwriting the cpuid field for it.

Regards,
Lorenzo

> 
> > 
> > I guess we could still do this in case we find other uses for setting
> > the cpuid; I don't think the addition of the READ_ONCE() will have any
> > measurable overhead on the common arches?
> 
> READ_ONCE() is cheap, but I thought it's worth mentioning in the
> commitmsg anyway :)
> 
> > 
> > -Toke
> > 
> 
> Thanks,
> Olek