RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1861300 - Huge memory leak in probe_rpmverifyfile [rhel-7.9.z]
Summary: Huge memory leak in probe_rpmverifyfile [rhel-7.9.z]
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: openscap
Version: 7.8
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
urgent
high
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Jan Černý
QA Contact: Matus Marhefka
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-07-28 09:11 UTC by Renaud Métrich
Modified: 2024-03-25 16:13 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-11-10 13:03:14 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2020:5017 0 None None None 2020-11-10 13:03:18 UTC

Description Renaud Métrich 2020-07-28 09:11:08 UTC 
Description of problem:

A huge memory leak is present in probe_rpmverifyfile, causing various issues on the system when executing oscap, typically OOMKiller starts killing processes and services.

On a small system with 450 RPMs, the memory consumed grows up to 900 MB!

    ==1668== 901,115,904 bytes in 219,999 blocks are definitely lost in loss
    record 77 of 77
    ==1668==    at 0x4C29F73: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
    ==1668==    by 0x749B93D: realpath@@GLIBC_2.3 (canonicalize.c:78)
    ==1668==    by 0x10EC5D: UnknownInlinedFun (stdlib.h:48)
    ==1668==    by 0x10EC5D: rpmverify_collect (rpmverifyfile.c:249)
    ==1668==    by 0x10EC5D: probe_main (rpmverifyfile.c:546)
    ==1668==    by 0x110C4F: probe_worker (worker.c:954)
    ==1668==    by 0x11074B: probe_worker_runfn (worker.c:56)
    ==1668==    by 0x7243EA4: start_thread (pthread_create.c:307)
    ==1668==    by 0x75568DC: clone (clone.S:111)
    
    ==1668== LEAK SUMMARY:
    ==1668==    definitely lost: 901,150,675 bytes in 224,438 blocks


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

openscap-1.2.17-9.el7_8 and later


How reproducible:

Always


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Start probe_rpmverifyfile under Valgrind

  # /usr/bin/valgrind --tool=memcheck --leak-check=yes /usr/libexec/openscap/probe_rpmverifyfile

2. Send the various orders on stdin one at a time, wait for result

First: (fast)
(#d8:seap.msg#d3::id#d0((#d20:rpmverifyfile_object#d3::id#d47:oval:ssg-object_files_fail_user_ownership:obj:1#d13::oval_version#d4:5.11)((#d4:name#d10::operation#d11#d10::var_check#d1)#d2:.*)((#d5:epoch#d10::operation#d11#d10::var_check#d1)#d2:.*)((#d7:version#d10::operation#d11#d10::var_check#d1)#d2:.*)((#d7:release#d10::operation#d11#d10::var_check#d1)#d2:.*)((#d4:arch#d10::operation#d11#d10::var_check#d1)#d2:.*)((#d8:filepath#d10::operation#d11#d10::var_check#d1)#d2:.*)((#d6:filter#d7::action#d2)#d46:oval:ssg-state_files_fail_user_ownership:ste:1)((#d9:behaviors#d6::nomd5#d4:true#d13::noghostfiles#d4:true))))

Second: (slow)
(#d8:seap.cmd#d3::id#d0#d9::reply_id#d0#d6::class#d3:usr#d5::type#d5:async#d1(((#d19:rpmverifyfile_state#d3::id#d46:oval:ssg-state_files_fail_user_ownership:ste:1#d9::operator#d1)((#d17:ownership_differs#d10::operation#d5#d10::var_check#d1#d13::entity_check#d1#d16::check_existence#d3)#d4:fail))))

Third: (fast)
(#d8:seap.msg#d3::id#d1((#d20:rpmverifyfile_object#d3::id#d48:oval:ssg-object_files_fail_group_ownership:obj:1#d13::oval_version#d4:5.11)((#d4:name#d10::operation#d11#d10::var_check#d1)#d2:.*)((#d5:epoch#d10::operation#d11#d10::var_check#d1)#d2:.*)((#d7:version#d10::operation#d11#d10::var_check#d1)#d2:.*)((#d7:release#d10::operation#d11#d10::var_check#d1)#d2:.*)((#d4:arch#d10::operation#d11#d10::var_check#d1)#d2:.*)((#d8:filepath#d10::operation#d11#d10::var_check#d1)#d2:.*)((#d6:filter#d7::action#d2)#d47:oval:ssg-state_files_fail_group_ownership:ste:1)((#d9:behaviors#d6::nomd5#d4:true#d13::noghostfiles#d4:true))))

Fourth: (slow)
(#d8:seap.cmd#d3::id#d1#d9::reply_id#d1#d6::class#d3:usr#d5::type#d5:async#d1(((#d19:rpmverifyfile_state#d3::id#d47:oval:ssg-state_files_fail_group_ownership:ste:1#d9::operator#d1)((#d13:group_differs#d10::operation#d5#d10::var_check#d1#d13::entity_check#d1#d16::check_existence#d3)#d4:fail))))


Actual results:

High memory consumption

Expected results:

Small memory consumption (~200MB)


Additional info:

This is a critical issue, system can get down due to this.
Comment 4 Jan Černý 2020-07-28 11:56:43 UTC 
The bug is reproducible also with current upstream maint-1.3 branch as of HEAD 802eb801dd083a67bd64d4f9c711ba1426e626cb.

It seems to be triggered by any rule that uses rpmverifyfile probe, eg. xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_rpm_verify_permissions, xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_rpm_verify_ownership.

For example, on Fedora 32:

oscap xccdf eval --profile standard --rule xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_rpm_verify_permissions /usr/share/xml/scap/ssg/content/ssg-fedora-ds.xml

Valgrind reports the same leak:

==400443== 
==400443== 352,256 bytes in 86 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 352 of 353
==400443==    at 0x483A809: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:307)
==400443==    by 0x51F23A6: realpath@@GLIBC_2.3 (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.31.so)
==400443==    by 0x489F8EA: oscap_realpath (util.c:251)
==400443==    by 0x495E766: rpmverify_collect (rpmverifyfile_probe.c:248)
==400443==    by 0x495F4D8: rpmverifyfile_probe_main (rpmverifyfile_probe.c:543)
==400443==    by 0x493560F: probe_worker (worker.c:1090)
==400443==    by 0x4932F87: probe_worker_runfn (worker.c:81)
==400443==    by 0x4CDA431: start_thread (in /usr/lib64/libpthread-2.31.so)
==400443==    by 0x52A99D2: clone (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.31.so)
==400443== 
==400443== 2,359,775,232 bytes in 576,117 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 353 of 353
==400443==    at 0x483A809: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:307)
==400443==    by 0x51F23A6: realpath@@GLIBC_2.3 (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.31.so)
==400443==    by 0x489F8EA: oscap_realpath (util.c:251)
==400443==    by 0x495E766: rpmverify_collect (rpmverifyfile_probe.c:248)
==400443==    by 0x495F4D8: rpmverifyfile_probe_main (rpmverifyfile_probe.c:543)
==400443==    by 0x493560F: probe_worker (worker.c:1090)
==400443==    by 0x4932F87: probe_worker_runfn (worker.c:81)
==400443==    by 0x4CDA431: start_thread (in /usr/lib64/libpthread-2.31.so)
==400443==    by 0x52A99D2: clone (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.31.so)
Comment 10 Marek Haicman 2020-08-19 12:15:10 UTC 
For posterity - as the rpmverifyfile probe is used in very limited number of SCAP rules, the workaround for now is to use tailoring, and remove those rules:

* file_permissions_unauthorized_sgid
* rpm_verify_hashes
* rpm_verify_permissions
* rpm_verify_ownership

This will prevent the crashes. With that, I am slightly reducing the severity rating of the BZ.
Comment 23 errata-xmlrpc 2020-11-10 13:03:14 UTC 
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (openscap bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:5017
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.