Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:9848:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id x8csp34953pxf; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 20:06:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzhDUd/vJOhKnc1lehgwV/DfsB3HUtxtU0ST8k4uqs7els/juSirnEG37PidixYGaWEiTaC X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:30b9:: with SMTP id df25mr6879440edb.136.1616641576094; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 20:06:16 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1616641576; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=jNuM+xmXL4p87Q9vKTqf3Q2RerptlGGscRGmfZE1APSEf4MQ+elBzpJXrSvD0io7HE AiTUZwjlx1JAwRyWxfnyHiL9YqcAz3Csc3NsvNQ0EEIo8bd9TQj7OrosWPSD8BtI/cWO xhPKh++vF2TlGubqNMeBZ5m8RBvhktShOWIqhi80C+FeJhW8OiobwFv9EtUSbCLtfjD4 fs3t1CAvdOCaTdg3zf+rQOkcSOX3vf/paABQiwcg2y/USx5WlPKl6plQa0OmU6G6Jamt LbjObDO54b4q8fP0YpiG9162mIHs44734EHvWLPZlQ9+ohvnYwgyzhJ/hdK4kWBTKPhE I7tg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=vmEZLP0bCW17Q1zuWowVTH7nUqJkWIJ0Tk22KOAAlLU=; b=MdNUHKdmfAeKaTWcUHjNOQAeeBQntO6jsKm0qlSazL10En5tSEVGjcBIGgHQU9cq8K lH1x49S8PsRRm1fsAzaDejAX4DLLOhnCQ5lhfVpGFjfCpWMDYSIuwB2pGGRqTD9KrvX8 gBkL9Vl7MzCUWwABk4Ghc/8zyb7okPDngWsziCaA1q0EJcpOa8xGFuQ1fxvnU4U0SorZ BIWVWqsDGcQFoLvUuqij35N/OjdZ4d7SX8HeAYNd35JHDtCe1jJ5Fa2e0u5nYeM7X2FL RXmWyw1Oq5j27tBCGOOWGgSs7bUuJ0bgtO0xFb9Z8v9BT+WPCwQc06f1fzcb4liOXJv7 xNWg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=OYrEjsET; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j5si3028906edh.218.2021.03.24.20.05.53; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 20:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=OYrEjsET; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235427AbhCXNjs (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:39:48 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:48390 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235453AbhCXNjb (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:39:31 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A32AA619D3; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:39:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1616593171; bh=TDbk9xEQM/NcN2QhRpnkSsVocsPDGupHEqk6V2xz/P0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OYrEjsET7NCoin90ygo2054yk3Oiy1DlE005AhqydWAp4GrjcCBSz0PNaDPeGiIKK SaqJggZTtup6IRRTOGClp4XotKvmY8N8SI50hDxzQ4HqlSeqA05ElIM1nrMc22NCrG wYX7QrA6/b2NIwSQxrgMWxjIBWjhNmoOg02HgPofJFGyffcoYYszik7pMi/Es7sxvd FeSvMx0/yXlXzjsi9DO6Oek4AynTIyTD5/rgOXg8IAT03+qacbVgkK1hh6Y3DE+VdY ZHfz0TYVFibfFqFSfLbyCjEhzhJXF3XK8aZyQiHeFqJy3CesYwH64gK5YLvUvFyBkG JYaWxEpnSwRWA== Received: by quaco.ghostprotocols.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 69EDA40647; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 10:39:28 -0300 (-03) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 10:39:28 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Jiri Olsa Cc: Namhyung Kim , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Mark Rutland , Alexander Shishkin , LKML , Andi Kleen , Ian Rogers Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf record: Fix memory leak in vDSO Message-ID: References: <20210315045641.700430-1-namhyung@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 02:50:48PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 09:56:26AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 11:28:12AM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu: > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:28 PM Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 01:56:41PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > > > I got several memory leak reports from Asan with a simple command. It > > > > > was because VDSO is not released due to the refcount. Like in > > > > > __dsos_addnew_id(), it should put the refcount after adding to the list. > > > > > > > > > > $ perf record true > > > > > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ] > > > > > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.030 MB perf.data (10 samples) ] > > > > > > > > > > ================================================================= > > > > > ==692599==ERROR: LeakSanitizer: detected memory leaks > > > > > > > > > > Direct leak of 439 byte(s) in 1 object(s) allocated from: > > > > > #0 0x7fea52341037 in __interceptor_calloc ../../../../src/libsanitizer/asan/asan_malloc_linux.cpp:154 > > > > > #1 0x559bce4aa8ee in dso__new_id util/dso.c:1256 > > > > > #2 0x559bce59245a in __machine__addnew_vdso util/vdso.c:132 > > > > > #3 0x559bce59245a in machine__findnew_vdso util/vdso.c:347 > > > > > #4 0x559bce50826c in map__new util/map.c:175 > > > > > #5 0x559bce503c92 in machine__process_mmap2_event util/machine.c:1787 > > > > > #6 0x559bce512f6b in machines__deliver_event util/session.c:1481 > > > > > #7 0x559bce515107 in perf_session__deliver_event util/session.c:1551 > > > > > #8 0x559bce51d4d2 in do_flush util/ordered-events.c:244 > > > > > #9 0x559bce51d4d2 in __ordered_events__flush util/ordered-events.c:323 > > > > > #10 0x559bce519bea in __perf_session__process_events util/session.c:2268 > > > > > #11 0x559bce519bea in perf_session__process_events util/session.c:2297 > > > > > #12 0x559bce2e7a52 in process_buildids /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/builtin-record.c:1017 > > > > > #13 0x559bce2e7a52 in record__finish_output /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/builtin-record.c:1234 > > > > > #14 0x559bce2ed4f6 in __cmd_record /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/builtin-record.c:2026 > > > > > #15 0x559bce2ed4f6 in cmd_record /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/builtin-record.c:2858 > > > > > #16 0x559bce422db4 in run_builtin /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/perf.c:313 > > > > > #17 0x559bce2acac8 in handle_internal_command /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/perf.c:365 > > > > > #18 0x559bce2acac8 in run_argv /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/perf.c:409 > > > > > #19 0x559bce2acac8 in main /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/perf.c:539 > > > > > #20 0x7fea51e76d09 in __libc_start_main ../csu/libc-start.c:308 > > > > > > > > > > Indirect leak of 32 byte(s) in 1 object(s) allocated from: > > > > > #0 0x7fea52341037 in __interceptor_calloc ../../../../src/libsanitizer/asan/asan_malloc_linux.cpp:154 > > > > > #1 0x559bce520907 in nsinfo__copy util/namespaces.c:169 > > > > > #2 0x559bce50821b in map__new util/map.c:168 > > > > > #3 0x559bce503c92 in machine__process_mmap2_event util/machine.c:1787 > > > > > #4 0x559bce512f6b in machines__deliver_event util/session.c:1481 > > > > > #5 0x559bce515107 in perf_session__deliver_event util/session.c:1551 > > > > > #6 0x559bce51d4d2 in do_flush util/ordered-events.c:244 > > > > > #7 0x559bce51d4d2 in __ordered_events__flush util/ordered-events.c:323 > > > > > #8 0x559bce519bea in __perf_session__process_events util/session.c:2268 > > > > > #9 0x559bce519bea in perf_session__process_events util/session.c:2297 > > > > > #10 0x559bce2e7a52 in process_buildids /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/builtin-record.c:1017 > > > > > #11 0x559bce2e7a52 in record__finish_output /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/builtin-record.c:1234 > > > > > #12 0x559bce2ed4f6 in __cmd_record /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/builtin-record.c:2026 > > > > > #13 0x559bce2ed4f6 in cmd_record /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/builtin-record.c:2858 > > > > > #14 0x559bce422db4 in run_builtin /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/perf.c:313 > > > > > #15 0x559bce2acac8 in handle_internal_command /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/perf.c:365 > > > > > #16 0x559bce2acac8 in run_argv /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/perf.c:409 > > > > > #17 0x559bce2acac8 in main /home/namhyung/project/linux/tools/perf/perf.c:539 > > > > > #18 0x7fea51e76d09 in __libc_start_main ../csu/libc-start.c:308 > > > > > > > > > > SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: 471 byte(s) leaked in 2 allocation(s). > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim > > > > > --- > > > > > tools/perf/util/vdso.c | 2 ++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/vdso.c b/tools/perf/util/vdso.c > > > > > index 3cc91ad048ea..43beb169631d 100644 > > > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/vdso.c > > > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/vdso.c > > > > > @@ -133,6 +133,8 @@ static struct dso *__machine__addnew_vdso(struct machine *machine, const char *s > > > > > if (dso != NULL) { > > > > > __dsos__add(&machine->dsos, dso); > > > > > dso__set_long_name(dso, long_name, false); > > > > > + /* Put dso here because __dsos_add already got it */ > > > > > + dso__put(dso); > > > > > > > > from quick look I don't understand why we take refcnt down > > > > right after adding to the list.. it would make sense to me > > > > That is the right pattern, i.e. the list has a reference to it, if it is > > removed outside the __dsos__add(), then list traversal may be corrupted. > > > > > > if dso is not stored elsewhere so we want dsos__exit to > > > > release it.. but it's still stored in map object > > > > > > > > I checked and we do extra dso__get in machine__findnew_vdso > > > > (and also in dsos__findnew_id) ... so that one seems to me > > > > like the one we should remove > > > > findnew _needs_ to grab te refcount while holding the lock, so that what > > it returns won't go away in a different thread. > > > > > > but I might be missing something, I'll try to check more > > > > deeply later on > > > > > I think we assume the find/findnew APIs include increment of > > > the refcount, otherwise all callers should be converted to do it > > > explicitly. > > > > The callers can't grab the reference safely, i.e. its outside the lock. > > > > > Then the 'find' part should increase it but the 'new' part is not > > > (as it already has 2) and that's why we have that. > > map__new > { > machine__findnew_vdso > { > __machine__addnew_vdso > { > dso__new refcnt=1 > __dsos__add refcnt=2 > dso__put refcnt=1 > } > dso__get refcnt=2 > } > map__init refcnt=3 > dso__put refcnt=2 > } > > we end up with refcnt=2, which is fine, because there's > dsos list and map owners but the process is tricky ;-) > > anyway I'm ok with the change > > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa Thanks, applied. - Arnaldo