Messages in this thread | | | From | Sumit Garg <> | Date | Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:30:33 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] optee: Suppress false positive kmemleak report in optee_handle_rpc() |
| |
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 at 09:42, Wang, Xiaolei <Xiaolei.Wang@windriver.com> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org> > Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 7:41 PM > To: Wang, Xiaolei <Xiaolei.Wang@windriver.com> > Cc: jens.wiklander@linaro.org; op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] optee: Suppress false positive kmemleak report in optee_handle_rpc() > > [Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address] > > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 17:35, Xiaolei Wang <xiaolei.wang@windriver.com> wrote: > > > > We observed the following kmemleak report: > > unreferenced object 0xffff000007904500 (size 128): > > comm "swapper/0", pid 1, jiffies 4294892671 (age 44.036s) > > hex dump (first 32 bytes): > > 00 47 90 07 00 00 ff ff 60 00 c0 ff 00 00 00 00 .G......`....... > > 60 00 80 13 00 80 ff ff a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 `............... > > backtrace: > > [<000000004c12b1c7>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x1ac/0x2f4 > > [<000000005d23eb4f>] tee_shm_alloc+0x78/0x230 > > [<00000000794dd22c>] optee_handle_rpc+0x60/0x6f0 > > [<00000000d9f7c52d>] optee_do_call_with_arg+0x17c/0x1dc > > [<00000000c35884da>] optee_open_session+0x128/0x1ec > > [<000000001748f2ff>] tee_client_open_session+0x28/0x40 > > [<00000000aecb5389>] optee_enumerate_devices+0x84/0x2a0 > > [<000000003df18bf1>] optee_probe+0x674/0x6cc > > [<000000003a4a534a>] platform_drv_probe+0x54/0xb0 > > [<000000000c51ce7d>] really_probe+0xe4/0x4d0 > > [<000000002f04c865>] driver_probe_device+0x58/0xc0 > > [<00000000b485397d>] device_driver_attach+0xc0/0xd0 > > [<00000000c835f0df>] __driver_attach+0x84/0x124 > > [<000000008e5a429c>] bus_for_each_dev+0x70/0xc0 > > [<000000001735e8a8>] driver_attach+0x24/0x30 > > [<000000006d94b04f>] bus_add_driver+0x104/0x1ec > > > > This is not a memory leak because we pass the share memory pointer to > > secure world and would get it from secure world before releasing it. > > > How about if it's actually a memory leak caused by the secure world? > > An example being secure world just allocates kernel memory via OPTEE_SMC_RPC_FUNC_ALLOC and doesn't free it via OPTEE_SMC_RPC_FUNC_FREE. > > > IMO, we need to cross-check optee-os if it's responsible for leaking kernel memory. > > Hi sumit, > > You mean we need to check whether there is a real memleak, > If being secure world just allocate kernel memory via OPTEE_SMC_PRC_FUNC_ALLOC and until the end, there is no free > It via OPTEE_SMC_PRC_FUNC_FREE, then we should judge it as a memory leak, wo need to judge whether it is caused by secure os?
Yes. AFAICT, optee-os should allocate shared memory to communicate with tee-supplicant. So once the communication is done, the underlying shared memory should be freed. I can't think of any scenario where optee-os should keep hold-off shared memory indefinitely.
-Sumit
> > Thanks > Xiaolei > > > > -Sumit > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiaolei Wang <xiaolei.wang@windriver.com> > > --- > > drivers/tee/optee/smc_abi.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tee/optee/smc_abi.c b/drivers/tee/optee/smc_abi.c > > index 6196d7c3888f..cf2e3293567d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/tee/optee/smc_abi.c > > +++ b/drivers/tee/optee/smc_abi.c > > @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ > > #include "optee_private.h" > > #include "optee_smc.h" > > #include "optee_rpc_cmd.h" > > +#include <linux/kmemleak.h> > > #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS > > #include "optee_trace.h" > > > > @@ -783,6 +784,7 @@ static void optee_handle_rpc(struct tee_context *ctx, > > param->a4 = 0; > > param->a5 = 0; > > } > > + kmemleak_not_leak(shm); > > break; > > case OPTEE_SMC_RPC_FUNC_FREE: > > shm = reg_pair_to_ptr(param->a1, param->a2); > > -- > > 2.25.1 > >
| |