[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZIrLLmb+o77Wy2sY@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 10:26:22 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com>
Cc: roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, hannes@...xchg.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/memcontrol: add check for allocation failure in
mem_cgroup_init()
On Thu 15-06-23 07:32:26, Haifeng Xu wrote:
> If mem_cgroup_init() fails to allocate mem_cgroup_tree_per_node, we
> should not try to initilaize it. Add check for this case to avoid
> potential NULL pointer dereference.
Technically yes and it seems that all users of soft_limit_tree.rb_tree_per_node
correctly check for NULL so this would be graceful failure handling. At
least superficially because the feature itself would be semi-broken when
used. But more practically this is a 24B allocation and if we fail to
allocate that early during the boot we are screwed anyway. Would such
a system have any chance to boot all the way to userspace? Woul any
userspace actually work?
Is this patch motivated by a code reading or is there any actual
practical upside of handling the error here?
> Signed-off-by: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index c73c5fb33f65..7ebf64e48b25 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -7422,6 +7422,8 @@ static int __init mem_cgroup_init(void)
> struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_node *rtpn;
>
> rtpn = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*rtpn), GFP_KERNEL, node);
> + if (!rtpn)
> + continue;
>
> rtpn->rb_root = RB_ROOT;
> rtpn->rb_rightmost = NULL;
> --
> 2.25.1
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists