From: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
To: Peilin Ye <[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 15:28:19 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRYGgCLiWx5LCoqgTj_RW_iQRLrzivWci7_UneN_=rwmw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhRXypjNgDAwdARZz-md_DaSTs+9BpMik8AzWojG7ChexA@mail.gmail.com>
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:
> >
> > Currently @audit_context is allocated twice for io_uring workers:
> >
> > 1. copy_process() calls audit_alloc();
> > 2. io_sq_thread() or io_wqe_worker() calls audit_alloc_kernel() (which
> > is effectively audit_alloc()) and overwrites @audit_context,
> > causing:
> >
> > BUG: memory leak
> > unreferenced object 0xffff888144547400 (size 1024):
> > <...>
> > hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> > 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
> > 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
> > backtrace:
> > [<ffffffff8135cfc3>] audit_alloc+0x133/0x210
> > [<ffffffff81239e63>] copy_process+0xcd3/0x2340
> > [<ffffffff8123b5f3>] create_io_thread+0x63/0x90
> > [<ffffffff81686604>] create_io_worker+0xb4/0x230
> > [<ffffffff81686f68>] io_wqe_enqueue+0x248/0x3b0
> > [<ffffffff8167663a>] io_queue_iowq+0xba/0x200
> > [<ffffffff816768b3>] io_queue_async+0x113/0x180
> > [<ffffffff816840df>] io_req_task_submit+0x18f/0x1a0
> > [<ffffffff816841cd>] io_apoll_task_func+0xdd/0x120
> > [<ffffffff8167d49f>] tctx_task_work+0x11f/0x570
> > [<ffffffff81272c4e>] task_work_run+0x7e/0xc0
> > [<ffffffff8125a688>] get_signal+0xc18/0xf10
> > [<ffffffff8111645b>] arch_do_signal_or_restart+0x2b/0x730
> > [<ffffffff812ea44e>] exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x5e/0x180
> > [<ffffffff844ae1b2>] syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x12/0x20
> > [<ffffffff844a7e80>] do_syscall_64+0x40/0x80
> >
> > Then,
> >
> > 3. io_sq_thread() or io_wqe_worker() frees @audit_context using
> > audit_free();
> > 4. do_exit() eventually calls audit_free() again, which is okay
> > because audit_free() does a NULL check.
> >
> > Free the old @audit_context first in audit_alloc_kernel(), and delete
> > the redundant calls to audit_free() for less confusion.
> >
> > Fixes: 5bd2182d58e9 ("audit,io_uring,io-wq: add some basic audit support to io_uring")
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Signed-off-by: Peilin Ye <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > 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?
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 :/
--
paul-moore.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-03 19:29 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 [this message]
2022-08-03 19:39 ` Jens Axboe
2022-08-03 20:24 ` Peilin Ye
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='CAHC9VhRYGgCLiWx5LCoqgTj_RW_iQRLrzivWci7_UneN_=rwmw@mail.gmail.com' \
[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