From: Peilin Ye <[email protected]>
To: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
Eric Paris <[email protected]>,
Peilin Ye <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit, io_uring, io-wq: Fix memory leak in io_sq_thread() and io_wqe_worker()
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 13:24:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220803202426.GA31375@bytedance> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhRYGgCLiWx5LCoqgTj_RW_iQRLrzivWci7_UneN_=rwmw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 03:28:19PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 9:16 AM Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 1:03 AM Peilin Ye <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > A better way to fix this memleak would probably be checking
> > > @args->io_thread in copy_process()? Something like:
> > >
> > > if (args->io_thread)
> > > retval = audit_alloc_kernel();
> > > else
> > > retval = audit_alloc();
> > >
> > > But I didn't want to add another if to copy_process() for this bugfix.
> > > Please suggest, thanks!
> >
> > Thanks for the report and patch! I'll take a closer look at this
> > today and get back to you.
>
> I think the best solution to this is simply to remove the calls to
> audit_alloc_kernel() in the io_uring and io-wq code, as well as the
> audit_alloc_kernel() function itself. As long as create_io_thread()
> ends up calling copy_process to create the new kernel thread the
> audit_context should be allocated correctly. Peilin Ye, are you able
> to draft a patch to do that and give it a test?
Sure, I will write a v2 today. Thanks for the suggestion!
> For those that may be wondering how this happened (I definitely was!),
> it looks like when I first started working on the LSM/audit support
> for io_uring it was before the v5.12-rc1 release when
> create_io_thread() was introduced. Prior to create_io_thread() it
> appears that io_uring/io-wq wasn't calling into copy_process() and
> thus was not getting an audit_context allocated in the kernel thread's
> task_struct; the solution for those original development drafts was to
> add a call to a new audit_alloc_kernel() which would handle the
> audit_context allocation. Unfortunately, I didn't notice the move to
> create_io_thread() during development and the redundant
> audit_alloc_kernel() calls remained :/
Thanks,
Peilin Ye
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-03 20:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-03 5:02 [PATCH] audit, io_uring, io-wq: Fix memory leak in io_sq_thread() and io_wqe_worker() Peilin Ye
2022-08-03 13:16 ` Paul Moore
2022-08-03 19:28 ` Paul Moore
2022-08-03 19:39 ` Jens Axboe
2022-08-03 20:24 ` Peilin Ye [this message]
2022-08-03 22:23 ` [PATCH v2] " Peilin Ye
2022-08-04 13:51 ` Paul Moore
2022-08-04 14:32 ` Jens Axboe
2022-08-04 14:44 ` Paul Moore
2022-08-04 14:36 ` Jens Axboe
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=20220803202426.GA31375@bytedance \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox