On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 07:10:26PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 06:41:14PM +0800, Quanyang Wang <quanyang.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > So I add 2 "Fixes tags" here to indicate that 2 commits introduce two
> > different issues.
>
> AFAIU, both the changes are needed to cause the leak, a single patch
> alone won't cause the issue. Is that correct? (Perhaps not as I realize,
> see below.)
>
> But on second thought, the problem is the missing percpu_ref_exit() in
> the (root) cgroup release path and percpu counter would allocate the
> percpu_count_ptr anyway, so 4bfc0bb2c60e is only making the leak more
> visible. Is this correct?
>
> I agree the commit 2b0d3d3e4fcf ("percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of
> percpu_ref in fast path") alone did nothing wrong.
If only precpu_ref data is leaked, it is fine to add "Fixes: 2b0d3d3e4fcf",
I thought cgroup_bpf_release() needs to release more for root cgroup, but
looks not true.
Thanks,
Ming
