From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug report] Memory leak in scmi_device_create
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:36:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z8my4MZ-In0ibxVY@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z8mCbc2Z2QGd3f8M@google.com>
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 11:09:33AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 05:10:16PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 11:59:58AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > > This was with a kernel running v6.13-rc3, but as far as I can tell, no
> > > relevant changes have landed since v6.13-rc3. My tree *does* include
> > > commit 295416091e44 ("firmware: arm_scmi: Fix slab-use-after-free in
> > > scmi_bus_notifier()"). I've only seen this kmemleak report once, so it's
> > > not happening consistently.
> > >
> > > See below for the full kmemleak report.
> > >
> > > Alice
> > >
> > > $ sudo cat /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak
> > > unreferenced object 0xffffff8106c86000 (size 2048):
> > > comm "swapper/0", pid 1, jiffies 4294893094
> > > hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> > > 02 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 c0 01 bc 03 81 ff ff ff ................
> > > 60 67 ba 03 81 ff ff ff 18 60 c8 06 81 ff ff ff `g.......`......
> > > backtrace (crc feae9680):
> > > [<00000000197aa008>] kmemleak_alloc+0x34/0xa0
> > > [<0000000056fe02c9>] __kmalloc_cache_noprof+0x1e0/0x450
> > > [<00000000a8b3dfe1>] __scmi_device_create+0xb4/0x2b4
> > > [<000000008714917b>] scmi_device_create+0x40/0x194
> > > [<000000001818f3cf>] scmi_chan_setup+0x144/0x3b8
> > > [<00000000970bad38>] scmi_probe+0x584/0xa78
> > > [<000000002600d2fd>] platform_probe+0xbc/0xf0
> > > [<00000000f6f556b4>] really_probe+0x1b8/0x520
> > > [<00000000eed93d59>] __driver_probe_device+0xe0/0x1d8
> > > [<00000000d613b754>] driver_probe_device+0x6c/0x208
> > > [<00000000187a9170>] __driver_attach+0x168/0x328
> > > [<00000000e3ff1834>] bus_for_each_dev+0x14c/0x178
> > > [<00000000984a3176>] driver_attach+0x34/0x44
> > > [<00000000fc35bf2a>] bus_add_driver+0x1bc/0x358
> > > [<00000000747fce19>] driver_register+0xc0/0x1a0
> > > [<0000000081cb8754>] __platform_driver_register+0x40/0x50
> > > unreferenced object 0xffffff8103bc01c0 (size 32):
> >
> > I could not reproduce on my setup, even though I run a system with
> > all the existent SCMI protocols (and related drivers) enabled (and
> > so a lot of device creations) and a downstream test driver that causes
> > even more SCMI devices to be created/destroyed at load/unload.
> >
> > Coming down the path from scmi_chan_setup(), it seems something around
> > transport devices creation, but it is not obvious to me where the leak
> > could hide....
> >
> > ...any particular setup on your side ? ...using LKMs, loading/unloading,
> > any usage pattern that could help me reproduce ?
>
> I looked into this a bit more, and actually it does happen consistently.
> It's just that kmemleak doesn't report it until 10 minutes after
> booting, so I did not notice it.
You can force the scanning with:
echo scan > /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak
Just do it a couple of times after boot, no need to wait 10 min for the
default background scanning.
> user@rk3588-ci:~$ sudo cat /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak
> unreferenced object 0xffffff81068c0000 (size 2048):
> comm "swapper/0", pid 1, jiffies 4294893128
> hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> 02 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 40 a3 7a 03 81 ff ff ff ........@.z.....
> 60 c8 79 03 81 ff ff ff 18 00 8c 06 81 ff ff ff `.y.............
> backtrace (crc 60df30fb):
> kmemleak_alloc+0x34/0xa0
> __kmalloc_cache_noprof+0x1e0/0x450
> __scmi_device_create+0xb4/0x2b4
Is this the kzalloc() for sizeof(*scmi_dev)? It's surprisingly large, I
thought it would go for the kmalloc-1k slab as struct device is below
this side, at least for my builds. Anyway...
> scmi_device_create+0x40/0x194
> scmi_chan_setup+0x144/0x3b8
> scmi_probe+0x51c/0x9fc
> platform_probe+0xbc/0xf0
> really_probe+0x1b8/0x520
> __driver_probe_device+0xe0/0x1d8
> driver_probe_device+0x6c/0x208
> __driver_attach+0x168/0x328
> bus_for_each_dev+0x14c/0x178
> driver_attach+0x34/0x44
> bus_add_driver+0x1bc/0x358
> driver_register+0xc0/0x1a0
> __platform_driver_register+0x40/0x50
> unreferenced object 0xffffff81037aa340 (size 32):
> comm "swapper/0", pid 1, jiffies 4294893128
> hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> 5f 5f 73 63 6d 69 5f 74 72 61 6e 73 70 6f 72 74 __scmi_transport
> 5f 64 65 76 69 63 65 5f 72 78 5f 31 30 00 ff ff _device_rx_10...
> backtrace (crc 8dab7ca7):
> kmemleak_alloc+0x34/0xa0
> __kmalloc_node_track_caller_noprof+0x234/0x528
> kstrdup+0x48/0x80
> kstrdup_const+0x30/0x3c
These are referenced from the main structure above, so they'd be
reported as leaks as well.
This loop in scmi_device_create() looks strange:
list_for_each_entry(rdev, phead, node) {
struct scmi_device *sdev;
sdev = __scmi_device_create(np, parent,
rdev->id_table->protocol_id,
rdev->id_table->name);
/* Report errors and carry on... */
if (sdev)
scmi_dev = sdev;
else
pr_err("(%s) Failed to create device for protocol 0x%x (%s)\n",
of_node_full_name(parent->of_node),
rdev->id_table->protocol_id,
rdev->id_table->name);
}
We can override scmi_dev a few times in the loop and lose the previous
sdev allocations. Is this intended?
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-06 14:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-05 11:59 [Bug report] Memory leak in scmi_device_create Alice Ryhl
2025-03-05 17:10 ` Cristian Marussi
2025-03-06 11:09 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-03-06 12:50 ` Cristian Marussi
2025-03-06 13:25 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-03-06 14:36 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2025-03-06 15:47 ` Cristian Marussi
2025-03-06 16:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2025-03-06 18:43 ` Cristian Marussi
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=Z8my4MZ-In0ibxVY@arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=aliceryhl@google.com \
--cc=arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cristian.marussi@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.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.