Message-ID: <93dbca4e-bd58-4b9a-a3c6-595810727121@meta.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 14:59:56 -0500
From: Chris Mason <clm@...a.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc: bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org, 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, ihor.solodrai@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/7] mm: introduce BPF kfunc to access memory
 events

On 12/20/25 1:43 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Chris Mason <clm@...a.com> writes:
> 
>> On 12/19/25 11:41 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I'll add some words here to the bpf prompts, thanks Roman.
> 
> I'll try to play with it too, hopefully we can fix it.
> 

https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts/commit/fcc3bf704798f6be64cbb2e28b05a5c91eee9c7b

Seems to do the trick here:

[ ... ]

  6. Missing negative check:
    - The function only checks event >= MEMCG_NR_MEMORY_EVENTS
    - Unlike bpf_mem_cgroup_page_state() which checks idx < 0 || idx >= MEMCG_NR_STAT
    - However, event is an enum memcg_memory_event, not int
    - Enums in C are typically unsigned when all values are non-negative (starting from 0)
    - The enum starts at MEMCG_LOW = 0 (implicit) and all values are positive
    - A negative value passed to this enum parameter would be extremely unusual and would require explicit casting

  Let me verify the enum values are all non-negative:

  Looking at memcg_memory_event enum:
  enum memcg_memory_event {
  	MEMCG_LOW,        // 0
  	MEMCG_HIGH,       // 1
  	MEMCG_MAX,        // 2
  	MEMCG_OOM,        // 3
  	MEMCG_OOM_KILL,   // 4
  	MEMCG_OOM_GROUP_KILL, // 5
  	MEMCG_SWAP_HIGH,  // 6
  	MEMCG_SWAP_MAX,   // 7
  	MEMCG_SWAP_FAIL,  // 8
  	MEMCG_SOCK_THROTTLED, // 9
  	MEMCG_NR_MEMORY_EVENTS, // 10
  }

  All values are 0 or positive. Since the parameter is typed as enum memcg_memory_event (not int), and BPF programs use constants from vmlinux.h, the lack of a < 0 check is acceptable:

  1. BPF programs using enum constants can only pass valid values (0-9)
  2. Even if a computed value were used, the enum type constrains the interpretation
  3. If a negative value were somehow cast to this enum, the unsigned comparison event >= MEMCG_NR_MEMORY_EVENTS would catch it (negative becomes large positive in unsigned comparison)

  Wait, let me reconsider this. The function parameter is enum memcg_memory_event event. In C, enums are typically represented as int under the hood. If someone passes a negative value, the comparison event >=
  MEMCG_NR_MEMORY_EVENTS would be signed comparison if event is treated as signed int.

  Let me check if this is a concern:

● plugin:semcode:semcode - grep_functions (MCP)(pattern: "memcg_memory_event", path_pattern: "bpf_memcontrol")
  ⎿  Searching function bodies for pattern: memcg_memory_event (filtering paths matching: bpf_memcontrol, limit: 100) at git commit 0f92b93b6e42765a13c933e4e9cb268f8d77cf3c

     Found 1 matching line(s):
     … +3 lines (ctrl+o to expand)

● Let me think more carefully about the signed/unsigned comparison issue. The comparison event >= MEMCG_NR_MEMORY_EVENTS involves:
  - event - an enum (which in C is typically int, signed)
  - MEMCG_NR_MEMORY_EVENTS - an enum constant (value 10)

  If event were negative (e.g., -1), then -1 >= 10 is false, and the function would proceed to access memcg->memory_events[-1] - an out-of-bounds access.

  However, I need to consider the BPF context:
  1. Per bpf.md: BPF programs use enum constants from vmlinux.h, and the compiler substitutes valid values at compile time
  2. The verifier tracks scalar values: Even if computed at runtime, the verifier tracks value ranges
  3. KF_TRUSTED_ARGS: The memcg pointer is validated, but this doesn't affect the enum parameter

  Let me compare with bpf_mem_cgroup_page_state() which takes int idx and explicitly checks idx < 0:

  __bpf_kfunc unsigned long bpf_mem_cgroup_page_state(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int idx)
  {
  	if (idx < 0 || idx >= MEMCG_NR_STAT)
  		return (unsigned long)-1;
  	...
  }

  The difference is:
  - bpf_mem_cgroup_page_state takes int idx - explicitly signed, needs both checks
  - bpf_mem_cgroup_memory_events takes enum memcg_memory_event event - enum typed

  For the enum case, per the BPF documentation loaded earlier:
  DO NOT report as bugs: Kfuncs that take enum-typed parameters and use constants from vmlinux.h without explicit bounds checks.

-chris

Powered by blists - more mailing lists