Re: [Patch net] cgroup: fix cgroup_sk_alloc() for sk_clone_lock()

[Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:36 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:19:13PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 6:44 PM Zefan Li <lizefan@huawei.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> > >
> > > Thanks for fixing this.
> > >
> > > On 2020/6/17 2:03, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > > When we clone a socket in sk_clone_lock(), its sk_cgrp_data is
> > > > copied, so the cgroup refcnt must be taken too. And, unlike the
> > > > sk_alloc() path, sock_update_netprioidx() is not called here.
> > > > Therefore, it is safe and necessary to grab the cgroup refcnt
> > > > even when cgroup_sk_alloc is disabled.
> > > >
> > > > sk_clone_lock() is in BH context anyway, the in_interrupt()
> > > > would terminate this function if called there. And for sk_alloc()
> > > > skcd->val is always zero. So it's safe to factor out the code
> > > > to make it more readable.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 090e28b229af92dc5b ("netprio_cgroup: Fix unlimited memory leak of v2 cgroups")
> > >
> > > but I don't think the bug was introduced by this commit, because there
> > > are already calls to cgroup_sk_alloc_disable() in write_priomap() and
> > > write_classid(), which can be triggered by writing to ifpriomap or
> > > classid in cgroupfs. This commit just made it much easier to happen
> > > with systemd invovled.
> > >
> > > I think it's 4bfc0bb2c60e2f4c ("bpf: decouple the lifetime of cgroup_bpf from cgroup itself"),
> > > which added cgroup_bpf_get() in cgroup_sk_alloc().
> >
> > Good point.
> >
> > I take a deeper look, it looks like commit d979a39d7242e06
> > is the one to blame, because it is the first commit that began to
> > hold cgroup refcnt in cgroup_sk_alloc().
>
> I agree, ut seems that the issue is not related to bpf and probably
> can be reproduced without CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF. d979a39d7242e06 indeed
> seems closer to the origin.

Yeah, I will update the Fixes tag and send V2.

>
> Btw, based on the number of reported-by tags it seems that there was
> a real issue which the patch is fixing. Maybe you'll a couple of words
> about how it reveals itself in the real life?

I still have no idea how exactly this is triggered. According to the
people who reported this bug, they just need to wait for some hours
to trigger. So I am not sure what to add here, just the stack trace?

Thanks.