From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: baptiste@bitsofnetworks.org Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 9ad43457 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:36:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mails.bitsofnetworks.org (rezine.polyno.me [193.33.56.138]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id bcb17487 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:36:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 19:43:12 +0100 From: Baptiste Jonglez To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Subject: Re: Memleak with 0.0.20171221-5 on Debian stretch Message-ID: <20180211184312.GD12558@lud.localdomain> References: <20180211134837.GC12558@lud.localdomain> <87r2prs80x.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5CUMAwwhRxlRszMD" In-Reply-To: <87r2prs80x.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Cc: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --5CUMAwwhRxlRszMD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11-02-18, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > Hi Baptiste-- >=20 > On Sun 2018-02-11 14:48:37 +0100, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: >=20 > > On a x86_64 VM with quite a lot of Wireguard traffic (~300 GB per day),= I > > am seeing a memory leak with wireguard 0.0.20171221-5. System is Debian > > stretch, kernel 4.9.65-3+deb9u2, wireguard package from unstable. >=20 > oof, thanks for this report, and for the really useful graph > visualization. >=20 > it's troubling that the changes correlated with the memleak are both a > kernel upgrade *and* a wireguard upgrade, since that kind of conflation > might be difficult to tease apart. Yes, I *think* it's related to wireguard and not the kernel upgrade (since far more people use the kernel than wireguard), but I'm not 100% sure. And indeed, we could imagine it to be an issue in wireguard related to the newer kernel... > i'm curious from the graph -- do you know what happened at the start of > week 6 where there's a sawtooth? Actually, the amount of "slab_cache" didn't change at that point, it's just the amount of application memory that dropped a bit. I looked at the logs, some userspace processes were being killed by the OOM-killer. > If you still see a leak with the latest wireguard, i'd appreciate if you > could test the current kernel with 0.0.20171011-1 to see whether you can > isolate the problem to the kernel. i'm not recommending running > 0.0.20171011-1 for the long term, but it should still be wire-format > compatible with other implementations and will help with debugging to > have the comparison. Excellent suggestion! It does look like 0.0.20180202-1 still has the memleak. I will leave it running a few more days to be certain, and then switch to 0.0.20171011-1. Baptiste --5CUMAwwhRxlRszMD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEjVflzZuxNlVFbt5QvgHsIqBOLkYFAlqAjrsACgkQvgHsIqBO LkYjXhAAur729smgcbYQuUcss0Hx93cnHYu7iZjxdfzLN/el7OAkcekfkuMHvV0x F25/+3PQbJ4Qje/BOkZ2HJAtIA5xqweXkyAyR5qFw3JLIo5RCbr/AP4F+WxpoTY9 BlvD0uk0VPOT1KCz+jZ3Fj/fD2lLMN/r3tCvuqoxKrGM8hbATlL5tzpfxsXlWF1l kGhrxjUCtqpcF7eQf9p+zbA3aWkkIvxdHPAlPTB/gX63Te0Vt9nWk4ULG7ZzFcEi Q2/AYexk7l4hJBcQIRjQqO6BpU/A/THDee1Ero68Ffnih3d2M6ey+aR7cHsPoflW cF2vWIXKFB3Yz54wNd0Y6wqrURwFfUOBy5BSqXFzx4pB/hxn5mgMalHJN5i9gIEx C7woUeBcd6zMs8QM8HMKAyuPopQmMPM4yu+j2710JojXQsGiHaTJeFBQHRPr6HoO fPuxSd3iqWS+vyjSG+vIa4PcZFILXpYjN+yP0kzHSTFwG3R2qjPx0EtkBNcbrd5I dp96yxPp5U8nAEF1d1fi9y7rnqEXURW+YLDQLmlzN1b3pQOmtER+DFO8srtk/QTH XK9d69Mba1TYWBDZjWahYCKPpuhC5Q2EMWXt75t7f/UtxI2yXw1xUkky03MLenh3 byI2UHGtrs+PIY9Em2kHByu6EsjBJQhzvoPeXHv4TJgAQAus0TE= =LdUS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5CUMAwwhRxlRszMD--