[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <29c2837ee641cb1cb0ce3bbdd3a597d9488c04eb838ffe19902c9461a4d282a2@mail.kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 23:57:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org
To: roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,ast@...nel.org,surenb@...gle.com,mhocko@...nel.org,shakeel.butt@...ux.dev,hannes@...xchg.org,andrii@...nel.org,inwardvessel@...il.com,linux-mm@...ck.org,cgroups@...r.kernel.org,bpf@...r.kernel.org,martin.lau@...nel.org,song@...nel.org,memxor@...il.com,tj@...nel.org,roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,ast@...nel.org,andrii@...nel.org,daniel@...earbox.net,martin.lau@...nel.org,eddyz87@...il.com,yonghong.song@...ux.dev,clm@...a.com,ihor.solodrai@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/23] mm: introduce BPF struct ops for OOM handling
```
commit 16c40fd36bbe32c63f44388b5613db55c6b27557
Author: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
mm: introduce BPF struct ops for OOM handling
This patch introduces a BPF struct ops mechanism for custom OOM handling
policies. It allows attaching bpf_oom_ops system-wide or per-memcg, with
handlers executed before the kernel OOM killer.
> diff --git a/mm/bpf_oom.c b/mm/bpf_oom.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..c4d09ed9d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/mm/bpf_oom.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -0,0 +1,272 @@
[ ... ]
> +static void bpf_oom_ops_unreg(void *kdata, struct bpf_link *link)
> +{
> + struct bpf_struct_ops_link *ops_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_struct_ops_link, link);
> + struct bpf_oom_ops **bpf_oom_ops_ptr = NULL;
> + struct bpf_oom_ops *bpf_oom_ops = kdata;
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = NULL;
> +
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMCG) && ops_link->cgroup_id) {
> + /* Detach from a memory cgroup? */
> + memcg = mem_cgroup_get_from_ino(ops_link->cgroup_id);
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(memcg))
> + goto exit;
> + bpf_oom_ops_ptr = bpf_oom_memcg_ops_ptr(memcg);
> + } else {
> + /* System-wide OOM handler */
> + bpf_oom_ops_ptr = &system_bpf_oom;
> + }
> +
> + /* Hide bpf_oom_ops from new callers */
> + if (!WARN_ON(READ_ONCE(*bpf_oom_ops_ptr) != bpf_oom_ops))
> + WRITE_ONCE(*bpf_oom_ops_ptr, NULL);
> +
> + mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
> +
> +exit:
> + /* Release bpf_oom_ops after a srcu grace period */
> + synchronize_srcu(&bpf_oom_srcu);
> +}
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> +void bpf_oom_memcg_offline(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +{
> + struct bpf_oom_ops *bpf_oom_ops;
> + struct bpf_oom_ctx exec_ctx;
> + u64 cgrp_id;
> + int idx;
> +
> + /* All bpf_oom_ops structures are protected using bpf_oom_srcu */
> + idx = srcu_read_lock(&bpf_oom_srcu);
> +
> + bpf_oom_ops = READ_ONCE(memcg->bpf_oom);
> + WRITE_ONCE(memcg->bpf_oom, NULL);
Can bpf_oom_ops_unreg() race with bpf_oom_memcg_offline()? If userspace
closes the BPF struct ops link FD while or after the cgroup is being
deleted, both functions could run concurrently on the same memcg:
Thread 1 (unreg): Thread 2 (offline):
mem_cgroup_get_from_ino()
[succeeds, cgroup exists]
srcu_read_lock()
READ_ONCE(memcg->bpf_oom) [gets ops]
WRITE_ONCE(memcg->bpf_oom, NULL)
READ_ONCE(*bpf_oom_ops_ptr)
[sees NULL]
WARN_ON() triggers
The WARN_ON in bpf_oom_ops_unreg() assumes *bpf_oom_ops_ptr matches
bpf_oom_ops, but bpf_oom_memcg_offline() can clear it first during
concurrent execution.
> +
> + if (bpf_oom_ops && bpf_oom_ops->handle_cgroup_offline) {
> + cgrp_id = cgroup_id(memcg->css.cgroup);
> + exec_ctx.cgroup_id = cgrp_id;
> + bpf_oom_ops->handle_cgroup_offline(&exec_ctx, cgrp_id);
> + }
> +
> + srcu_read_unlock(&bpf_oom_srcu, idx);
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG */
[ ... ]
```
---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
In-Reply-To-Subject: `mm: introduce BPF struct ops for OOM handling`
CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/18859027430
Powered by blists - more mailing lists