kmemleak: 6 new suspected memory leaks in -net #319
Labels
Comments
|
The only diff compared to yesterday (export-net/20221130T171638...export-net/20221201T055227):
Not related. |
|
As discussed on IRC with @pabeni and because the mentioned code in MPTCP didn't change recently (especially in -net), the issue is very likely outside MPTCP code. Yet, nobody else reported a similar issue on netdev. |
|
We didn't manage to reproduce it and it looks like it is not due to MPTCP. |
matttbe
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 27, 2024
In case when is64 == 1 in emit(A64_REV32(is64, dst, dst), ctx) the generated insn reverses byte order for both high and low 32-bit words, resuling in an incorrect swap as indicated by the jit test: [ 9757.262607] test_bpf: #312 BSWAP 16: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcd jited:1 8 PASS [ 9757.264435] test_bpf: #313 BSWAP 32: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcdab89 jited:1 ret 1460850314 != -271733879 (0x5712ce8a != 0xefcdab89)FAIL (1 times) [ 9757.266260] test_bpf: #314 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0x67452301 jited:1 8 PASS [ 9757.268000] test_bpf: #315 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef >> 32 -> 0xefcdab89 jited:1 8 PASS [ 9757.269686] test_bpf: #316 BSWAP 16: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x1032 jited:1 8 PASS [ 9757.271380] test_bpf: #317 BSWAP 32: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x10325476 jited:1 ret -1460850316 != 271733878 (0xa8ed3174 != 0x10325476)FAIL (1 times) [ 9757.273022] test_bpf: #318 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x98badcfe jited:1 7 PASS [ 9757.274721] test_bpf: #319 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 >> 32 -> 0x10325476 jited:1 9 PASS Fix this by forcing 32bit variant of rev32. Fixes: 1104247 ("bpf, arm64: Support unconditional bswap") Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> Tested-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> Acked-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> Acked-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huawei.com> Message-ID: <20240321081809.158803-1-asavkov@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
matttbe
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 20, 2024
Recent additions in BPF like cpu v4 instructions, test_bpf module exhibits the following failures: test_bpf: #82 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #83 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #84 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #85 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #86 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_W jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #165 ALU_SDIV_X: -6 / 2 = -3 jited:1 ret 2147483645 != -3 (0x7ffffffd != 0xfffffffd)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #166 ALU_SDIV_K: -6 / 2 = -3 jited:1 ret 2147483645 != -3 (0x7ffffffd != 0xfffffffd)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #169 ALU_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #170 ALU_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #172 ALU64_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times) test_bpf: #313 BSWAP 16: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcd eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 301 PASS test_bpf: #314 BSWAP 32: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcdab89 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 555 PASS test_bpf: #315 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0x67452301 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 268 PASS test_bpf: #316 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef >> 32 -> 0xefcdab89 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 269 PASS test_bpf: #317 BSWAP 16: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x1032 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 460 PASS test_bpf: #318 BSWAP 32: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x10325476 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 320 PASS test_bpf: #319 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x98badcfe eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 222 PASS test_bpf: #320 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 >> 32 -> 0x10325476 eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported jited:0 273 PASS test_bpf: #344 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_B eBPF filter opcode 0091 (@5) unsupported jited:0 432 PASS test_bpf: #345 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_H eBPF filter opcode 0089 (@5) unsupported jited:0 381 PASS test_bpf: #346 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W eBPF filter opcode 0081 (@5) unsupported jited:0 505 PASS test_bpf: #490 JMP32_JA: Unconditional jump: if (true) return 1 eBPF filter opcode 0006 (@1) unsupported jited:0 261 PASS test_bpf: Summary: 1040 PASSED, 10 FAILED, [924/1038 JIT'ed] Fix them by adding missing processing. Fixes: daabb2b ("bpf/tests: add tests for cpuv4 instructions") Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Link: https://msgid.link/91de862dda99d170697eb79ffb478678af7e0b27.1709652689.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu
matttbe
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 3, 2024
When the following snippet is run, lockdep will report a deadlock[1].
/* Acquire all queues dim_locks */
for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++)
mutex_lock(&vi->rq[i].dim_lock);
There's no deadlock here because the vq locks are always taken
in the same order, but lockdep can not figure it out. So refactoring
the code to alleviate the problem.
[1]
========================================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
6.9.0-rc7+ #319 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
ethtool/962 is trying to acquire lock:
but task is already holding lock:
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&vi->rq[i].dim_lock);
lock(&vi->rq[i].dim_lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
3 locks held by ethtool/962:
#0: ffffffff82dbaab0 (cb_lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: genl_rcv+0x19/0x40
#1: ffffffff82dad0a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
ethnl_default_set_doit+0xbe/0x1e0
stack backtrace:
CPU: 6 PID: 962 Comm: ethtool Not tainted 6.9.0-rc7+ #319
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
rel-1.16.0-0-gd239552ce722-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
<TASK>
dump_stack_lvl+0x79/0xb0
check_deadlock+0x130/0x220
__lock_acquire+0x861/0x990
lock_acquire.part.0+0x72/0x1d0
? lock_acquire+0xf8/0x130
__mutex_lock+0x71/0xd50
virtnet_set_coalesce+0x151/0x190
__ethnl_set_coalesce.isra.0+0x3f8/0x4d0
ethnl_set_coalesce+0x34/0x90
ethnl_default_set_doit+0xdd/0x1e0
genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xdc/0x130
genl_family_rcv_msg+0x154/0x230
? __pfx_ethnl_default_set_doit+0x10/0x10
genl_rcv_msg+0x4b/0xa0
? __pfx_genl_rcv_msg+0x10/0x10
netlink_rcv_skb+0x5a/0x110
genl_rcv+0x28/0x40
netlink_unicast+0x1af/0x280
netlink_sendmsg+0x20e/0x460
__sys_sendto+0x1fe/0x210
? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
? do_user_addr_fault+0x3a2/0x8a0
? __lock_release+0x5e/0x160
? do_user_addr_fault+0x3a2/0x8a0
? lock_release+0x72/0x140
? do_user_addr_fault+0x3a7/0x8a0
__x64_sys_sendto+0x29/0x30
do_syscall_64+0x78/0x180
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
Fixes: 4d4ac2e ("virtio_net: Add a lock for per queue RX coalesce")
Signed-off-by: Heng Qi <hengqi@linux.alibaba.com>
Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com>
Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240528134116.117426-3-hengqi@linux.alibaba.com
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
This morning, the CI found 6 suspected memory leaks when validating export-net/20221201T055227 (commit a864fdf)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5950451166740480
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: