From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
To: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, dvyukov@google.com,
eric.dumazet@gmail.com, syzkaller@googlegroups.com,
kcc@google.com, glider@google.com, sasha.levin@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do sanity checks before migrating the asoc
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:59:00 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <569E5D44.5000103@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <569E45FD.4040801@gmail.com>
Em 19-01-2016 12:19, Vlad Yasevich escreveu:
> On 01/15/2016 04:40 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:11:03PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
>>> <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 09:42:27PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> The following program leads to a leak of two sock objects:
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> On commit 8513342170278468bac126640a5d2d12ffbff106 (Dec 28).
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid I cannot reproduce this one?
>>>> I enabled dynprintk at sctp_destroy_sock and it does print twice when I
>>>> run this test app.
>>>> Also added debugs to check association lifetime, and then it was
>>>> destroyed. Same for endpoint.
>>>>
>>>> Checking with trace-cmd, both calls to sctp_close() resulted in
>>>> sctp_destroy_sock() being called.
>>>>
>>>> As for sock_hold/put, they are matched too.
>>>>
>>>> Ideas? Log is below for double checking
>>>
>>>
>>> Hummm... I can reproduce it pretty reliably.
>>>
>>> [ 197.459024] kmemleak: 11 new suspected memory leaks (see
>>> /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak)
>>> [ 307.494874] kmemleak: 409 new suspected memory leaks (see
>>> /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak)
>>> [ 549.784022] kmemleak: 125 new suspected memory leaks (see
>>> /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak)
>>>
>>> I double checked via /proc/slabinfo:
>>>
>>> SCTPv6 4373 4420 2368 13 8 : tunables 0 0
>>> 0 : slabdata 340 340 0
>>>
>>> SCTPv6 starts with almost 0, but grows infinitely while I run the
>>> program in a loop.
>>>
>>> Here is my SCTP related configs:
>>>
>>> CONFIG_IP_SCTP=y
>>> CONFIG_NET_SCTPPROBE=y
>>> CONFIG_SCTP_DBG_OBJCNT=y
>>> # CONFIG_SCTP_DEFAULT_COOKIE_HMAC_MD5 is not set
>>> # CONFIG_SCTP_DEFAULT_COOKIE_HMAC_SHA1 is not set
>>> CONFIG_SCTP_DEFAULT_COOKIE_HMAC_NONE=y
>>> # CONFIG_SCTP_COOKIE_HMAC_MD5 is not set
>>> # CONFIG_SCTP_COOKIE_HMAC_SHA1 is not set
>>>
>>> I am on commit 67990608c8b95d2b8ccc29932376ae73d5818727 and I don't
>>> seem to have any sctp-related changes on top.
>>
>> Ok, now I can. Enabled slub debugs, now I cannot see calls to
>> sctp_destroy_sock. I see to sctp_close, but not to sctp_destroy_sock.
>>
>> And SCTPv6 grew by 2 sockets after the execution.
>>
>> Further checking, it's a race within SCTP asoc migration:
>> thread 0 thread 1
>> - app creates a sock
>> - sends a packet to itself
>> - sctp will create an asoc and do implicit
>> handshake
>> - send the packet
>> - listen()
>> - accept() is called and
>> that asoc is migrated
>> - packet is delivered
>> - skb->destructor is called, BUT:
>>
>> (note that if accept() is called after packet is delivered and skb is freed, it
>> doesn't happen)
>>
>> static void sctp_wfree(struct sk_buff *skb)
>> {
>> struct sctp_chunk *chunk = skb_shinfo(skb)->destructor_arg;
>> struct sctp_association *asoc = chunk->asoc;
>> struct sock *sk = asoc->base.sk;
>> ...
>> atomic_sub(sizeof(struct sctp_chunk), &sk->sk_wmem_alloc);
>>
>> and it's pointing to the new socket already. So one socket gets a leak
>> on sk_wmem_alloc and another gets a negative value:
>>
>> --- a/net/sctp/socket.c
>> +++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
>> @@ -1537,12 +1537,14 @@ static void sctp_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout)
>> /* Hold the sock, since sk_common_release() will put sock_put()
>> * and we have just a little more cleanup.
>> */
>> + printk("%s sock_hold %p\n", __func__, sk);
>> sock_hold(sk);
>> sk_common_release(sk);
>>
>> bh_unlock_sock(sk);
>> spin_unlock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
>>
>> + printk("%s sock_put %p %d %d\n", __func__, sk, atomic_read(&sk->sk_refcnt), atomic_read(&sk->sk_wmem_alloc));
>> sock_put(sk);
>>
>> SCTP_DBG_OBJCNT_DEC(sock);
>>
>>
>> gave me:
>>
>> [ 99.456944] sctp_close sock_hold ffff880137df8940
>> ...
>> [ 99.457337] sctp_close sock_put ffff880137df8940 1 -247
>> [ 99.458313] sctp_close sock_hold ffff880137dfef00
>> ...
>> [ 99.458383] sctp_close sock_put ffff880137dfef00 1 249
>>
>> That's why the socket is not freed..
>>
>
> Interesting... sctp_sock_migrate() accounts for this race in the
> receive buffer, but not the send buffer.
>
> On the one hand I am not crazy about the connect-to-self scenario.
> On the other, I think to support it correctly, we should support
> skb migrations for the send case just like we do the receive case.
Yes, not thrilled here either about connect-to-self.
But there is a big difference on how both works. For rx we can just look
for wanted skbs in rx queue, as they aren't going anywhere, but for tx I
don't think we can easily block sctp_wfree() call because that may be
happening on another CPU (or am I mistaken here? sctp still doesn't have
RFS but even irqbalance could affect this AFAICT) and more than one skb
may be in transit at a time.
The lockings for this on sctp_chunk would be pretty nasty, I think, and
normal usage lets say wouldn't be benefit from it. Considering the
possible migration, as we can't trust chunk->asoc right away in
sctp_wfree, the lock would reside in sctp_chunk and we would have to go
on taking locks one by one on tx queue for the migration. Ugh ;)
Marcelo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
To: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, dvyukov@google.com,
eric.dumazet@gmail.com, syzkaller@googlegroups.com,
kcc@google.com, glider@google.com, sasha.levin@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do sanity checks before migrating the asoc
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:59:00 -0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <569E5D44.5000103@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <569E45FD.4040801@gmail.com>
Em 19-01-2016 12:19, Vlad Yasevich escreveu:
> On 01/15/2016 04:40 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:11:03PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
>>> <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 09:42:27PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> The following program leads to a leak of two sock objects:
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> On commit 8513342170278468bac126640a5d2d12ffbff106 (Dec 28).
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid I cannot reproduce this one?
>>>> I enabled dynprintk at sctp_destroy_sock and it does print twice when I
>>>> run this test app.
>>>> Also added debugs to check association lifetime, and then it was
>>>> destroyed. Same for endpoint.
>>>>
>>>> Checking with trace-cmd, both calls to sctp_close() resulted in
>>>> sctp_destroy_sock() being called.
>>>>
>>>> As for sock_hold/put, they are matched too.
>>>>
>>>> Ideas? Log is below for double checking
>>>
>>>
>>> Hummm... I can reproduce it pretty reliably.
>>>
>>> [ 197.459024] kmemleak: 11 new suspected memory leaks (see
>>> /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak)
>>> [ 307.494874] kmemleak: 409 new suspected memory leaks (see
>>> /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak)
>>> [ 549.784022] kmemleak: 125 new suspected memory leaks (see
>>> /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak)
>>>
>>> I double checked via /proc/slabinfo:
>>>
>>> SCTPv6 4373 4420 2368 13 8 : tunables 0 0
>>> 0 : slabdata 340 340 0
>>>
>>> SCTPv6 starts with almost 0, but grows infinitely while I run the
>>> program in a loop.
>>>
>>> Here is my SCTP related configs:
>>>
>>> CONFIG_IP_SCTP=y
>>> CONFIG_NET_SCTPPROBE=y
>>> CONFIG_SCTP_DBG_OBJCNT=y
>>> # CONFIG_SCTP_DEFAULT_COOKIE_HMAC_MD5 is not set
>>> # CONFIG_SCTP_DEFAULT_COOKIE_HMAC_SHA1 is not set
>>> CONFIG_SCTP_DEFAULT_COOKIE_HMAC_NONE=y
>>> # CONFIG_SCTP_COOKIE_HMAC_MD5 is not set
>>> # CONFIG_SCTP_COOKIE_HMAC_SHA1 is not set
>>>
>>> I am on commit 67990608c8b95d2b8ccc29932376ae73d5818727 and I don't
>>> seem to have any sctp-related changes on top.
>>
>> Ok, now I can. Enabled slub debugs, now I cannot see calls to
>> sctp_destroy_sock. I see to sctp_close, but not to sctp_destroy_sock.
>>
>> And SCTPv6 grew by 2 sockets after the execution.
>>
>> Further checking, it's a race within SCTP asoc migration:
>> thread 0 thread 1
>> - app creates a sock
>> - sends a packet to itself
>> - sctp will create an asoc and do implicit
>> handshake
>> - send the packet
>> - listen()
>> - accept() is called and
>> that asoc is migrated
>> - packet is delivered
>> - skb->destructor is called, BUT:
>>
>> (note that if accept() is called after packet is delivered and skb is freed, it
>> doesn't happen)
>>
>> static void sctp_wfree(struct sk_buff *skb)
>> {
>> struct sctp_chunk *chunk = skb_shinfo(skb)->destructor_arg;
>> struct sctp_association *asoc = chunk->asoc;
>> struct sock *sk = asoc->base.sk;
>> ...
>> atomic_sub(sizeof(struct sctp_chunk), &sk->sk_wmem_alloc);
>>
>> and it's pointing to the new socket already. So one socket gets a leak
>> on sk_wmem_alloc and another gets a negative value:
>>
>> --- a/net/sctp/socket.c
>> +++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
>> @@ -1537,12 +1537,14 @@ static void sctp_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout)
>> /* Hold the sock, since sk_common_release() will put sock_put()
>> * and we have just a little more cleanup.
>> */
>> + printk("%s sock_hold %p\n", __func__, sk);
>> sock_hold(sk);
>> sk_common_release(sk);
>>
>> bh_unlock_sock(sk);
>> spin_unlock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
>>
>> + printk("%s sock_put %p %d %d\n", __func__, sk, atomic_read(&sk->sk_refcnt), atomic_read(&sk->sk_wmem_alloc));
>> sock_put(sk);
>>
>> SCTP_DBG_OBJCNT_DEC(sock);
>>
>>
>> gave me:
>>
>> [ 99.456944] sctp_close sock_hold ffff880137df8940
>> ...
>> [ 99.457337] sctp_close sock_put ffff880137df8940 1 -247
>> [ 99.458313] sctp_close sock_hold ffff880137dfef00
>> ...
>> [ 99.458383] sctp_close sock_put ffff880137dfef00 1 249
>>
>> That's why the socket is not freed..
>>
>
> Interesting... sctp_sock_migrate() accounts for this race in the
> receive buffer, but not the send buffer.
>
> On the one hand I am not crazy about the connect-to-self scenario.
> On the other, I think to support it correctly, we should support
> skb migrations for the send case just like we do the receive case.
Yes, not thrilled here either about connect-to-self.
But there is a big difference on how both works. For rx we can just look
for wanted skbs in rx queue, as they aren't going anywhere, but for tx I
don't think we can easily block sctp_wfree() call because that may be
happening on another CPU (or am I mistaken here? sctp still doesn't have
RFS but even irqbalance could affect this AFAICT) and more than one skb
may be in transit at a time.
The lockings for this on sctp_chunk would be pretty nasty, I think, and
normal usage lets say wouldn't be benefit from it. Considering the
possible migration, as we can't trust chunk->asoc right away in
sctp_wfree, the lock would reside in sctp_chunk and we would have to go
on taking locks one by one on tx queue for the migration. Ugh ;)
Marcelo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-19 15:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-30 20:42 net/sctp: sock memory leak Dmitry Vyukov
2015-12-30 20:42 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2015-12-30 20:47 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2015-12-30 20:47 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-01-15 18:46 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-01-15 18:46 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-01-15 19:11 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-15 19:11 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-15 21:40 ` [PATCH net] sctp: do sanity checks before migrating the asoc Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-01-15 21:40 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-01-19 14:19 ` Vlad Yasevich
2016-01-19 14:19 ` Vlad Yasevich
2016-01-19 15:59 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner [this message]
2016-01-19 15:59 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-01-19 18:37 ` Vlad Yasevich
2016-01-19 18:37 ` Vlad Yasevich
2016-01-19 19:31 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-01-19 19:31 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-01-19 19:55 ` Vlad Yasevich
2016-01-19 19:55 ` Vlad Yasevich
2016-01-19 20:08 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-01-19 20:08 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-02-03 16:13 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-02-03 16:13 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-02-04 9:47 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-02-04 9:47 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-03-02 8:56 ` net/sctp: sock memory leak Dmitry Vyukov
2016-03-02 8:56 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-03-02 19:42 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-03-02 19:42 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=569E5D44.5000103@gmail.com \
--to=marcelo.leitner@gmail.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=kcc@google.com \
--cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
--cc=syzkaller@googlegroups.com \
--cc=vyasevich@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.