Re: [srcu] a365bb5f6e: leaking_addresses.proc.___srcu_struct_ptrs.

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

----- On Apr 8, 2019, at 3:35 PM, Joel Fernandes, Google joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 01:25:49PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Apr 8, 2019, at 1:10 PM, paulmck paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 01:06:56PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> >> ----- On Apr 8, 2019, at 11:21 AM, paulmck paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:57:50PM +0800, Rong Chen wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 07:30:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:56:10PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> >> >> > > FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-7):
>> >> >> > > 
>> >> >> > > commit: a365bb5f6eafb220a1448674054b05c250829313 ("srcu: Allocate per-CPU data
>> >> >> > > for DEFINE_SRCU() in modules")
>> >> >> > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git
>> >> >> > > tmp.2019.04.07a
>> >> >> > > 
>> >> >> > > in testcase: leaking_addresses
>> >> >> > > with following parameters:
>> >> >> > > 
>> >> >> > > 
>> >> >> > > 
>> >> >> > > 
>> >> >> > > on test machine: qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu SandyBridge -smp 2 -m 2G
>> >> >> > > 
>> >> >> > > caused below changes (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire
>> >> >> > > log/backtrace):
>> >> >> > > 
>> >> >> > > 
>> >> >> > > +-------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>> >> >> > > |                                                 | a44a55abae | a365bb5f6e |
>> >> >> > > +-------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>> >> >> > > | boot_successes                                  | 0          | 3          |
>> >> >> > > | boot_failures                                   | 4          | 6          |
>> >> >> > > | BUG:kernel_reboot-without-warning_in_test_stage | 4          | 6          |
>> >> >> > > | leaking_addresses.proc.___srcu_struct_ptrs.     | 0          | 6          |
>> >> >> > > +-------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Please help me out here.  Without this commit, the kernel never succeeds
>> >> >> > in booting, but with it the kernel sometimes succeeds in booting?  Or am
>> >> >> > I misinterpreting the above table?
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > 							Thanx, Paul
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Hi Paul,
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> The message "kernel_reboot-without-warning_in_test_stage" is from 0day,
>> >> >> leaking addresses generated many dmesgs, so 0day thought some bootings may
>> >> >> failed.
>> >> > 
>> >> [...]
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.POLY] 0xffffffffc0498360
>> >> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst32.byteshift_table] 0xffffffffc03f50f0
>> >> >> > > [19 __bug_table] 0xffffffffc02be184
>> >> >> > > [2 __tracepoints_ptrs] 0xffffffffc02f1cd0
>> >> >> > > [15 .smp_locks] 0xffffffffc042b2cc
>> >> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.enc] 0xffffffffc0498420
>> >> >> > > [11 __ksymtab_gpl] 0xffffffffc042b028
>> >> >> > > [8 __ex_table] 0xffffffffc04f13f4
>> >> >> > > [1 .init.rodata] 0xffffffffc0316000
>> >> >> > > [36 .note.gnu.build-id] 0xffffffffc03ed000
>> >> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.dec] 0xffffffffc0498410
>> >> >> > > [16 .parainstructions] 0xffffffffc03ed940
>> >> >> > > [8 .text..refcount] 0xffffffffc04e2aaa
>> >> >> > > [36 .gnu.linkonce.this_module] 0xffffffffc03f12c0
>> >> >> > > [2 __bpf_raw_tp_map] 0xffffffffc03054a0
>> >> >> > > [30 .orc_unwind_ip] 0xffffffffc03ee9f9
>> >> >> > > [8 .altinstr_replacement] 0xffffffffc0497372
>> >> >> > > [26 .rodata.str1.8] 0xffffffffc03ed1f0
>> >> >> > > [11 __verbose] 0xffffffffc05c9398
>> >> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.TWOONE] 0xffffffffc0498380
>> >> >> > > [1 uevent] KEY=402000000 3803078f800d001 feffffdfffefffff fffffffffffffffe
>> >> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.ONE] 0xffffffffc04983e0
>> >> >> > > [8 .altinstructions] 0xffffffffc0498430
>> >> >> > > [36 modules] crct10dif_pclmul 16384 1 - Live 0xffffffffc03f4000
>> >> >> > > [1 ___srcu_struct_ptrs] 0xffffffffc03840d0
>> >> >> > > 
>> >> 
>> >> This list of "leaked" memory seems to include the __tracepoint_ptrs
>> >> as well. So at least you seem to have the same behavior as the tracepoint
>> >> code, which was your source of inspiration for this implementation,
>> >> which is a good start.
>> >> 
>> >> So the remaining question is: is this memory allocated for module sections
>> >> really leaked for each module, or is it an issue with memory allocation
>> >> tracking ?
>> > 
> 
> It looks to me like this has nothing to do with memory allocation. This is
> the leaking_addresses.pl script isn't it? It basically finds out if
> any /proc filesystem entries or dmesg lines have kernel addresses which could
> be "leaking" into userspace. I have no idea which filesystem entries leak
> these addresses.
> 
> This commit that introduced the script is:
> 
> commit 136fc5c41f349296db1910677bb7402b0eeff376
> Author: Tobin C. Harding <me@xxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Mon Nov 6 16:19:27 2017 +1100
> 
>    scripts: add leaking_addresses.pl
> 
>    Currently we are leaking addresses from the kernel to user space. This
>    script is an attempt to find some of those leakages. Script parses
>    `dmesg` output and /proc and /sys files for hex strings that look like
>    kernel addresses.

Then I suspect we have a likely culprit here:

root@thinkos:/sys# cat /sys/module/*/sections/__tracepoints_ptrs
0xffffffffc07865c0
0xffffffffc0bad3e8
0xffffffffc0b19808
0xffffffffc0847b80
0xffffffffc0ea7078
0xffffffffc07cb260
0xffffffffc0f32038
0xffffffffc055cc68
0xffffffffc10b1970
0xffffffffc0a209f0
0xffffffffc0612a00
0xffffffffc041df40
0xffffffffc0abe6a8
0xffffffffc09fb688
0xffffffffc0ce8c58
0xffffffffc08b7660
0xffffffffc092bd28
0xffffffffc04ccc90

Which seems to be a "feature" from module.c.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> thanks,
> 
>  - Joel

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com