Hi Ming,
On 10/18/21 8:59 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 06:06:28PM +0800, Quanyang Wang wrote:
Hi Ming,
On 10/18/21 5:02 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 03:56:23PM +0800, quanyang.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Quanyang Wang <quanyang.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 since the commit 2b0d3d3e4fcf ("percpu_ref: reduce
memory footprint of percpu_ref in fast path") 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.
This patch also fixes the commit 4bfc0bb2c60e ("bpf: decouple the lifetime
of cgroup_bpf from cgroup itself"). A cgroup_bpf_offline is needed to do a
cleanup that frees the resources which are allocated by cgroup_bpf_inherit
in cgroup_setup_root.
And inside cgroup_bpf_offline, cgroup_get() is at the beginning and
cgroup_put is at the end of cgroup_bpf_release which is called by
cgroup_bpf_offline. So cgroup_bpf_offline can keep the balance of
cgroup's refcount.
Fixes: 2b0d3d3e4fcf ("percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of percpu_ref in fast path")
If I understand correctly, cgroup_bpf_release() won't be called without
your patch. So anything allocated in cgroup_bpf_inherit() will be
leaked?
No, for now cgroup_bpf_release is called to release bpf.refcnt.data of the
cgroup which is not root_cgroup. Only root_cgroup's bpf data is leaked.
You mean that cgroup_bpf_inherit() allocates nothing for root_cgroup?
Yes, cgroup_bpf_inherit allocates something for root_cgroup.
The earlier commit 4bfc0bb2c60e ("bpf: decouple the lifetime of
cgroup_bpf from cgroup itself") introduces an imbalance that call
cgroup_bpf_inherit(&root_cgroup) but not call
cgroup_bpf_offline(&root_cgroup). But there was no memory leak here.
When the commit 2b0d3d3e4fcf ("percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of
percpu_ref in fast path") applies, some data is allocated for
root_cgroup and not released with root_cgroup, and memory leak is observed.
So I add 2 "Fixes tags" here to indicate that 2 commits introduce two
different issues.
But it seems that 2 "Fixes tags" is misleading now.
So maybe just fix earlier commit 4bfc0bb2c60e which introduces imbalance?
Thanks,
Quanyang
If yes, I agree you can add 'Fixes: 2b0d3d3e4fcf', otherwise please
remove it.
Thanks,
Ming
