linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 06/26] mm: memcontrol: return root object cgroup for root memory cgroup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e323f903-d366-41c0-a20e-6d743865d984@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:40:44 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@...ux.dev>
To: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
Cc: hannes@...xchg.org, hughd@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com,
 roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
 david@...hat.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, ziy@...dia.com,
 imran.f.khan@...cle.com, kamalesh.babulal@...cle.com,
 axelrasmussen@...gle.com, yuanchu@...gle.com, weixugc@...gle.com,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
 Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/26] mm: memcontrol: return root object cgroup for
 root memory cgroup



On 11/18/25 8:12 PM, Harry Yoo wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 07:28:41PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>> Hi Harry,
>>
>> On 11/17/25 5:17 PM, Harry Yoo wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 09:58:19PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>> From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
>>>>
>>>> Memory cgroup functions such as get_mem_cgroup_from_folio() and
>>>> get_mem_cgroup_from_mm() return a valid memory cgroup pointer,
>>>> even for the root memory cgroup. In contrast, the situation for
>>>> object cgroups has been different.
>>>>
>>>> Previously, the root object cgroup couldn't be returned because
>>>> it didn't exist. Now that a valid root object cgroup exists, for
>>>> the sake of consistency, it's necessary to align the behavior of
>>>> object-cgroup-related operations with that of memory cgroup APIs.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    include/linux/memcontrol.h | 29 +++++++++++++++++-------
>>>>    mm/memcontrol.c            | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>>>>    mm/percpu.c                |  2 +-
>>>>    3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>>>> index 6185d8399a54e..9fdbd4970021d 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>>>> @@ -332,6 +332,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
>>>>    #define MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH 64U
>>>>    extern struct mem_cgroup *root_mem_cgroup;
>>>> +extern struct obj_cgroup *root_obj_cgroup;
>>>>    enum page_memcg_data_flags {
>>>>    	/* page->memcg_data is a pointer to an slabobj_ext vector */
>>>> @@ -549,6 +550,11 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_is_root(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>>>>    	return (memcg == root_mem_cgroup);
>>>>    }
>>>> +static inline bool obj_cgroup_is_root(const struct obj_cgroup *objcg)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	return objcg == root_obj_cgroup;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> After reparenting, an objcg may satisfy objcg->memcg == root_mem_cgroup
>>> while objcg != root_obj_cgroup. Should they be considered as
>>> root objcgs?
>>
>> Indeed, it's pointless to charge to root_mem_cgroup (objcg->memcg).
>>
>> So it should be:
>>
>> static inline bool obj_cgroup_is_root(const struct obj_cgroup *objcg)
>> {
>> 	return (objcg == root_obj_cgroup) || (objcg->memcg == root_mem_cgroup);
>> }
>>
> 
> Thanks and tomorrow I'll try to review if will be correct ;)
> 
>>>>    static inline bool mem_cgroup_disabled(void)
>>>>    {
>>>>    	return !cgroup_subsys_enabled(memory_cgrp_subsys);
>>>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>>> index 2afd7f99ca101..d484b632c790f 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>>> @@ -2871,7 +2865,7 @@ int __memcg_kmem_charge_page(struct page *page, gfp_t gfp, int order)
>>>>    	int ret = 0;
>>>>    	objcg = current_obj_cgroup();
>>>> -	if (objcg) {
>>>> +	if (!obj_cgroup_is_root(objcg)) {
>>>
>>> Now that we support the page and slab allocators support allocating memory
>>> in NMI contexts (on some archs), current_obj_cgroup() can return NULL
>>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMCG_NMI_UNSAFE) && in_nmi()) returns true
>>> (then it leads to a NULL-pointer-deref bug).
>>>
>>> But IIUC this is applied to kmem charging only (as they use this_cpu ops
>>> for stats update), and we don't have to apply the same restriction to
>>> charging LRU pages with objcg.
>>>
>>> Maybe Shakeel has more insight on this.
>>>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250519063142.111219-1-shakeel.butt@linux.dev
>>
>> Thanks for this information, and it seems there's nothing wrong here.
> 
> I mean at least we should not introduce a NULL-pointer-deref bug in
> __memcg_kmem_charge_page(), by assuming objcg returned by
> current_obj_cgroup() is non-NULL?
> 
> 1. Someone allocates non-slab kmem in an NMI context (in_nmi() == true),
>     calling __memcg_kmem_charge_page().
> 2. current_obj_cgruop() returns NULL because the architectures
>     has CONFIG_MEMCG_NMI_UNSAFE and it's in an NMI context.
> 3. obj_cgroup_is_root() returns false since
>     objcg (NULL) != root_obj_cgroup
> 4. we pass NULL to obj_cgroup_charge_pages().
> 5. obj_cgroup_charge_pages() calls get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg(),
>     dereference objcg->memcg (! a NULL-pointer-deref).

Oh, indeed. After adding MEMCG_NMI_UNSAFE, we should first check
if objcg is NULL.

Thanks!

> 
>> Thanks,
>> Qi
>>
>>>
>