[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a4zdepdh.fsf@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 20:41:46 -0800
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
inwardvessel@...il.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, mhocko@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...nel.org, eddyz87@...il.com,
yonghong.song@...ux.dev, clm@...a.com, ihor.solodrai@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/7] mm: introduce BPF kfunc to access
memory events
bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org writes:
>> diff --git a/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c b/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
>> index d84fe6f3ed43..858eb43766ce 100644
>> --- a/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
>> @@ -103,6 +103,22 @@ __bpf_kfunc unsigned long bpf_mem_cgroup_usage(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> return mem_cgroup_usage(memcg, false) * PAGE_SIZE;
>> }
>>
>> +/**
>> + * bpf_mem_cgroup_memory_events - Read memory cgroup's memory event value
>> + * @memcg: memory cgroup
>> + * @event: memory event id
>> + *
>> + * Returns current memory event count.
>> + */
>> +__bpf_kfunc unsigned long bpf_mem_cgroup_memory_events(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>> + enum memcg_memory_event event)
>> +{
>> + if (event >= MEMCG_NR_MEMORY_EVENTS)
>> + return (unsigned long)-1;
>
> Should this also check for negative values? The enum type is typically
> signed, so a BPF program passing a negative event value would pass this
> check but cause an out-of-bounds read from memcg->memory_events[].
>
> The similar bpf_mem_cgroup_page_state() in this same file uses:
>
> if (idx < 0 || idx >= MEMCG_NR_STAT)
>
> which checks both bounds. Could the check here be changed to:
>
> if (event < 0 || event >= MEMCG_NR_MEMORY_EVENTS)
>
> to match that pattern?
No, the bpf verifier enforces event > 0.
It's a false positive.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists