From: Quanyang Wang <redacted>
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 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.
Fixes: 2b0d3d3e4fcfb ("percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of percpu_ref in fast path")
Signed-off-by: Quanyang Wang <redacted>
---
kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com> Date: 2021-10-11 16:21:35
Hello.
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 08:16:03PM +0800, quanyang.wang@windriver.com wrote:
This is because that 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.
Good catch!
Adding cgroup_bpf_offline which calls percpu_ref_kill to
cgroup_kill_sb can free root_cgrp->bpf.refcnt.data in umount path.
That is sensible.
Fixes: 2b0d3d3e4fcfb ("percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of percpu_ref in fast path")
Why this Fixes:? Is the leak absent before the percpu_ref refactoring?
I guess the embedded data are free'd together with cgroup. Makes me
wonder why struct cgroup_bpf has a separate percpu_ref counter from
struct cgroup...
From: Roman Gushchin <hidden> Date: 2021-10-11 16:30:03
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 06:21:28PM +0200, Michal Koutny wrote:
Hello.
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 08:16:03PM +0800, quanyang.wang@windriver.com wrote:
quoted
This is because that 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.
Good catch!
+1
quoted
Adding cgroup_bpf_offline which calls percpu_ref_kill to
cgroup_kill_sb can free root_cgrp->bpf.refcnt.data in umount path.
That is sensible.
quoted
Fixes: 2b0d3d3e4fcfb ("percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of percpu_ref in fast path")
Why this Fixes:? Is the leak absent before the percpu_ref refactoring?
I agree, the "fixes" tag looks dubious to me.
I guess the embedded data are free'd together with cgroup. Makes me
wonder why struct cgroup_bpf has a separate percpu_ref counter from
struct cgroup...
This is because a cgroup can stay a long time (sometimes effectively forever)
in a dying state, so we want to release bpf structures earlier.
Thanks!
From: Quanyang Wang <hidden> Date: 2021-10-12 06:22:55
Hi Michal & Roman,
Thank you for your review.
On 10/12/21 12:21 AM, Michal Koutný wrote:
Hello.
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 08:16:03PM +0800, quanyang.wang@windriver.com wrote:
quoted
This is because that 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.
Good catch!
quoted
Adding cgroup_bpf_offline which calls percpu_ref_kill to
cgroup_kill_sb can free root_cgrp->bpf.refcnt.data in umount path.
That is sensible.
quoted
Fixes: 2b0d3d3e4fcfb ("percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of percpu_ref in fast path")
Why this Fixes:? Is the leak absent before the percpu_ref refactoring?
Before this commit, percpu_ref is embedded in cgroup, it can be freed
along with cgroup, so there is no memory leak. Since this commit, it
causes the memory leak.
Should I change it to "Fixes: 4bfc0bb2c60e ("bpf: decouple the lifetime
of cgroup_bpf from cgroup itself")"?
I guess the embedded data are free'd together with cgroup. Makes me
wonder why struct cgroup_bpf has a separate percpu_ref counter from
struct cgroup...
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com> Date: 2021-10-12 09:33:01
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 02:22:13PM +0800, Quanyang Wang [off-list ref] wrote:
Before this commit, percpu_ref is embedded in cgroup, it can be freed along
with cgroup, so there is no memory leak. Since this commit, it causes the
memory leak.
Should I change it to "Fixes: 4bfc0bb2c60e ("bpf: decouple the lifetime of
cgroup_bpf from cgroup itself")"?
I see. The leak is a product so I'd tag both of them and explain it in
the commit message.
Thank you,
Michal
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> Date: 2021-10-22 15:51:02
Roman Gushchin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 06:21:28PM +0200, Michal Koutny wrote:
quoted
Hello.
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 08:16:03PM +0800, quanyang.wang@windriver.com wrote:
quoted
This is because that 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.
Good catch!
+1
quoted
quoted
Adding cgroup_bpf_offline which calls percpu_ref_kill to
cgroup_kill_sb can free root_cgrp->bpf.refcnt.data in umount path.
That is sensible.
quoted
Fixes: 2b0d3d3e4fcfb ("percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of percpu_ref in fast path")
Why this Fixes:? Is the leak absent before the percpu_ref refactoring?
I agree, the "fixes" tag looks dubious to me.
quoted
I guess the embedded data are free'd together with cgroup. Makes me
wonder why struct cgroup_bpf has a separate percpu_ref counter from
struct cgroup...
This is because a cgroup can stay a long time (sometimes effectively forever)
in a dying state, so we want to release bpf structures earlier.
Thanks!
Other than whitespace LGTM.
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>