From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: dkg@fifthhorseman.net Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 22312bc6 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:15:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [162.247.75.118]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 75f4f8bb for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:15:09 +0000 (UTC) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Baptiste Jonglez , wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com Subject: Re: Memleak with 0.0.20171221-5 on Debian stretch In-Reply-To: <20180211134837.GC12558@lud.localdomain> References: <20180211134837.GC12558@lud.localdomain> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:20:14 -0500 Message-ID: <87r2prs80x.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Baptiste-- On Sun 2018-02-11 14:48:37 +0100, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > 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. oof, thanks for this report, and for the really useful graph visualization. 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. i'm curious from the graph -- do you know what happened at the start of week 6 where there's a sawtooth? 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. regards, --dkg