Mailing List Archive: Memory allocation inside target handler

Memory allocation inside target handler

thomas.jarosch at intra2net

Aug 17, 2007, 8:17 AM

Post #1 of 7 (2979 views)

Hi there,

I'm currently debugging a memory allocation issue in ipt_ACCOUNT running on
2.6.21.7. The module allocates memory using get_zeroed_page(GFP_ATOMIC)
inside the target handler code (interrupt context).

This worked so far without problems. After upgrading from 2.4.32
to 2.6.21.7, I get a kernel oops after 15 to 30 minutes. Attached you'll
find a picture of the oops (sorry, no serial console available).

You can see the kernel is allocating memory when an interrupt is fired.
It then enters netfilter and ends up in ipt_ACCOUNT
which also tries to allocate memory -> Boom.

My question is now:
- Is it ok to use get_zeroed_page(GFP_ATOMIC) in interrupt context?
- Do I need some special locking before I can allocate memory inside
the target handler? Is f.e. kmalloc protected by some special locking?

In addition ipt_ACCOUNT allocates some memory during the module init code
with kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL), but I guess this is not an issue here.

Thanks in advance for any help,
Thomas Jarosch

Re: Memory allocation inside target handler [ In reply to ]

thomas.jarosch at intra2net

Aug 17, 2007, 8:22 AM

Post #2 of 7 (2933 views)

... and now the picture of the oops ;-)

Re: Memory allocation inside target handler [ In reply to ]

thomas.jarosch at intra2net

Aug 17, 2007, 8:25 AM

Post #3 of 7 (2903 views)

On Friday, 17. August 2007, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> ... and now the picture of the oops ;-)

Looks like JPEGs get filtered, so here's a link to the oops:

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/6681/kerneloopsey1.jpg

Thomas

Re: Memory allocation inside target handler [ In reply to ]

jengelh at computergmbh

Aug 17, 2007, 8:42 AM

Post #4 of 7 (2908 views)

On Aug 17 2007 17:17, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
>
>My question is now:
>- Is it ok to use get_zeroed_page(GFP_ATOMIC) in interrupt context?

I suppose so. There is code that checks for __GFP_WAIT.
(GFP_ATOMIC has __GFP_WAIT _cleared_)

>- Do I need some special locking before I can allocate memory inside
> the target handler? Is f.e. kmalloc protected by some special locking?

Only locking for your own structures, if needed.
kmalloc alone does not. (You can write a memory leak without any locks, so to
speak.)

Jan
--

Re: Memory allocation inside target handler [ In reply to ]

c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx

Aug 17, 2007, 1:39 PM

Post #5 of 7 (2904 views)

Hi Thomas,

On 17.08.2007 17:25, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> On Friday, 17. August 2007, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
>> ... and now the picture of the oops ;-)
>
> Looks like JPEGs get filtered, so here's a link to the oops:
>
> http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/6681/kerneloopsey1.jpg

You might want to retry with an untainted kernel.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

Re: Memory allocation inside target handler [ In reply to ]

thomas.jarosch at intra2net

Aug 20, 2007, 2:29 AM

Post #6 of 7 (2888 views)

Hello Carl-Daniel,

On Friday, 17. August 2007, you wrote:
> > Looks like JPEGs get filtered, so here's a link to the oops:
> >
> > http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/6681/kerneloopsey1.jpg
>
> You might want to retry with an untainted kernel.

Good point, unfortunately it didn't make a difference.

Thanks,
Thomas

Re: Memory allocation inside target handler [ In reply to ]

thomas.jarosch at intra2net

Aug 20, 2007, 2:46 AM

Post #7 of 7 (2897 views)

On Friday, 17. August 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Aug 17 2007 17:17, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> >My question is now:
> >- Is it ok to use get_zeroed_page(GFP_ATOMIC) in interrupt context?
>
> I suppose so. There is code that checks for __GFP_WAIT.
> (GFP_ATOMIC has __GFP_WAIT _cleared_)
>
> >- Do I need some special locking before I can allocate memory inside
> > the target handler? Is f.e. kmalloc protected by some special locking?
>
> Only locking for your own structures, if needed.
> kmalloc alone does not. (You can write a memory leak without any locks, so
> to speak.)

ipt_ACCOUNT spinlocks the internal data structures, so that should be ok.

I've changed the code to allocate and free memory for every packet instead of
every read from userpace, now the machine survives only 10 seconds. To me it
looks like a missing locking in the kernel memory handler,
I'll try to get a backtrace via serial console.

Thomas