linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/6] mm: introduce bpf_get_root_mem

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAADnVQLNiMTG5=BCMHQZcPC-+=owFvRW+DDNdSKFdF8RPHGrqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:32:17 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	JP Kobryn <inwardvessel@...il.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, 
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/6] mm: introduce bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup()
 BPF kfunc

On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 11:42 PM Matt Bobrowski
<mattbobrowski@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 09:00:28PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 08:41:53PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > >> Introduce a BPF kfunc to get a trusted pointer to the root memory
> > >> cgroup. It's very handy to traverse the full memcg tree, e.g.
> > >> for handling a system-wide OOM.
> > >>
> > >> It's possible to obtain this pointer by traversing the memcg tree
> > >> up from any known memcg, but it's sub-optimal and makes BPF programs
> > >> more complex and less efficient.
> > >>
> > >> bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup() has a KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL semantics,
> > >> however in reality it's not necessary to bump the corresponding
> > >> reference counter - root memory cgroup is immortal, reference counting
> > >> is skipped, see css_get(). Once set, root_mem_cgroup is always a valid
> > >> memcg pointer. It's safe to call bpf_put_mem_cgroup() for the pointer
> > >> obtained with bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup(), it's effectively a no-op.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
> > >> ---
> > >>  mm/bpf_memcontrol.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c b/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
> > >> index 82eb95de77b7..187919eb2fe2 100644
> > >> --- a/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
> > >> +++ b/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
> > >> @@ -10,6 +10,25 @@
> > >>
> > >>  __bpf_kfunc_start_defs();
> > >>
> > >> +/**
> > >> + * bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup - Returns a pointer to the root memory cgroup
> > >> + *
> > >> + * The function has KF_ACQUIRE semantics, even though the root memory
> > >> + * cgroup is never destroyed after being created and doesn't require
> > >> + * reference counting. And it's perfectly safe to pass it to
> > >> + * bpf_put_mem_cgroup()
> > >> + *
> > >> + * Return: A pointer to the root memory cgroup.
> > >> + */
> > >> +__bpf_kfunc struct mem_cgroup *bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup(void)
> > >> +{
> > >> +  if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> > >> +          return NULL;
> > >> +
> > >> +  /* css_get() is not needed */
> > >> +  return root_mem_cgroup;
> > >> +}
> > >> +
> > >>  /**
> > >>   * bpf_get_mem_cgroup - Get a reference to a memory cgroup
> > >>   * @css: pointer to the css structure
> > >> @@ -64,6 +83,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc void bpf_put_mem_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > >>  __bpf_kfunc_end_defs();
> > >>
> > >>  BTF_KFUNCS_START(bpf_memcontrol_kfuncs)
> > >> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL)
> > >
> > > I feel as though relying on KF_ACQUIRE semantics here is somewhat
> > > odd. Users of this BPF kfunc will now be forced to call
> > > bpf_put_mem_cgroup() on the returned root_mem_cgroup, despite it being
> > > completely unnecessary.
> >
> > A agree that it's annoying, but I doubt this extra call makes any
> > difference in the real world.
>
> Sure, that certainly holds true.
>
> > Also, the corresponding kernel code designed to hide the special
> > handling of the root cgroup. css_get()/css_put() are simple no-ops for
> > the root cgroup, but are totally valid.
>
> Yes, I do see that.
>
> > So in most places the root cgroup is handled as any other, which
> > simplifies the code. I guess the same will be true for many bpf
> > programs.
>
> I see, however the same might not necessarily hold for all other
> global pointers which end up being handed out by a BPF kfunc (not
> necessarily bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup()). This is why I was wondering
> whether there's some sense to introducing another KF flag (or
> something similar) which allows returned values from BPF kfuncs to be
> implicitly treated as trusted.

No need for a new KF flag. Any struct returned by kfunc should be
trusted or trusted_or_null if KF_RET_NULL was specified.
I don't remember off the top of my head, but this behavior
is already implemented or we discussed making it this way.