[Devel] Re: [RFC v14][PATCH 53/54] Detect resource leaks for whole-containercheckpoint

[Sukadev Bhattiprolu]

Oren Laadan [orenl at cs.columbia.edu] wrote:
| 
| 
| Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
| > Oren Laadan [orenl at cs.columbia.edu] wrote:
| > | Add a 'users' count to objhash items, and, for a !CHECKPOINT_SUBTREE
| > | checkpoint, return an error code if the actual objects' counts are
| > | higher, indicating leaks (references to the objects from a task not
| > | being checkpointed).  Of course, by this time most of the checkpoint
| > | image has been written out to disk, so this is purely advisory.  But
| > | then, it's probably naive to argue that anything more than an advisory
| > | 'this went wrong' error code is useful.
| > | 
| > | The comparison of the objhash user counts to object refcounts as a
| > | basis for checking for leaks comes from Alexey's OpenVZ-based c/r
| > | patchset.
| > | 
| > | Signed-off-by: Oren Laadan <orenl at cs.columbia.edu>
| > | ---
| > |  checkpoint/checkpoint.c    |    8 +++
| > |  checkpoint/memory.c        |    2 +
| > |  checkpoint/objhash.c       |  108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
| > |  include/linux/checkpoint.h |    2 +
| > |  4 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
| > | 
| > | diff --git a/checkpoint/checkpoint.c b/checkpoint/checkpoint.c
| > | index 4319976..32a0a8e 100644
| > | --- a/checkpoint/checkpoint.c
| > | +++ b/checkpoint/checkpoint.c
| > | @@ -498,6 +498,14 @@ int do_checkpoint(struct ckpt_ctx *ctx, pid_t pid)
| > |  	if (ret < 0)
| > |  		goto out;
| > | 
| > | +	if (!(ctx->flags & CHECKPOINT_SUBTREE)) {
| > | +		/* verify that all objects are contained (no leaks) */
| > | +		if (!ckpt_obj_contained(ctx)) {
| > | +			ret = -EBUSY;
| > | +			goto out;
| > | +		}
| > | +	}
| > | +
| > |  	/* on success, return (unique) checkpoint identifier */
| > |  	ctx->crid = atomic_inc_return(&ctx_count);
| > |  	ret = ctx->crid;
| > | diff --git a/checkpoint/memory.c b/checkpoint/memory.c
| > | index 7637c1e..5ae2b41 100644
| > | --- a/checkpoint/memory.c
| > | +++ b/checkpoint/memory.c
| > | @@ -687,6 +687,8 @@ static int do_checkpoint_mm(struct ckpt_ctx *ctx, struct mm_struct *mm)
| > |  			ret = exe_objref;
| > |  			goto out;
| > |  		}
| > | +		/* account for all references through vma/exe_file */
| > | +		ckpt_obj_users_inc(ctx, mm->exe_file, mm->num_exe_file_vmas);
| > 
| > Do we really need to add num_exe_file_vmas here ?
| > 
| > A quick look at all callers for added_exe_file_vma() seems to show that
| > those callers also do a get_file().
| 
| Each vma whose file is the same as mm->exe_file causes the refcount
| of that file to increase by 2: once by vma->vm_file, and once via
| added_exe_file_vma(). The c/r code calls ckpt_obj_checkpoint() only
| once, thus once one obj_file_grab() for that file. The code above
| accounts for the missing count.

If the executable is shared between a parent and child (as in fork()/dup_mm)
do we still need to account for the 'added_exe_file_vma()' in the child
process ?

i.e I can trace a call to added_exe_file_vma() when loading/mmaping a biniary.
But I can't trace a call to added_exe_file_vma() during fork()/dup_mm()).

Here is how I can account for the 16 in the obj->users :-)

	Parent:
		do_checkpoint_mm: +2	= 2	(first time/obj_new())
		num_exe_vmas: +2	= 4

		filemap_checkpoint: +1	= 5	(text section)
		filemap_checkpoint: +1	= 6	(data section)

	Child:
		do_checkpoint_mm: +1	= 7
		num_exe_file_vmas: +2	= 9

		filemap_checkpoint: +1	= 10	(text section)
		filemap_checkpoint: +1	= 11	(data section)

	Grand child:

		do_checkpoint_mm: +1	= 12
		num_exe_file_vmas: +2	= 14

		filemap_checkpoint: +1	= 15	(text section)
		filemap_checkpoint: +1	= 16	(data section)

Even if we were to drop the num_exe_file_vmas for the child and
grand-child, we would be off by 2 :-(

As of now, I can account for 9 of the 10 found in file->f_count.


	Parent:
		load_a.out/do_mmap: +2	= 2	(text)
		load_aout/do_mmap(): +2	= 4	(data)

	Child:
		dup_mm()/dup_mmap(): +1	= 5	(text)
		dup_mm()/dup_mmap(): +1	= 6	(data)

	Grand Child:
		dup_mm()/dup_mmap(): +1	= 7	(text)
		dup_mm()/dup_mmap(): +1	= 8	(data)

	Checkpoint/Objhash:

		obj_new/obj_file_grab: +1 = 9

Another question is regarding the obj->users = 2 in obj_new():

	- one of this reference is for the get_file() in obj_file_grab()
	  called near the end of obj_new() right ?

	- where can I find the other get_file() ?

(again with reference to the file the three process are executing, ptree2)

Thanks,

Sukadev
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers