From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
To: "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@google.com>
Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
muchun.song@linux.dev, zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memcontrol: fix NULL pointer deref from high_work_func() on dying memcg
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2026 15:17:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <auJyok6AZtRqNtt4@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261028183537.605854-1-tjmercier@google.com>
On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 11:35:37AM -0700, T.J. Mercier wrote:
> When memory.high is exceeded in non-task context, try_charge_memcg()
> schedules memcg->high_work without taking a reference on the memcg, and
> high_work_func() invokes reclaim_high() without pinning the memcg.
>
> cancel_work_sync(&memcg->high_work) only runs at the end of teardown in
> mem_cgroup_css_free(), so high_work_func() can start or still be running
> reclaim_high() after mem_cgroup_css_released() or shrink_many() has
> called lru_gen_release_memcg() and unhashed lruvec->lrugen.list. If
> reclaim tries to rotate the memcg, lru_gen_rotate_memcg() dereferences a
> NULL pprev pointer.
>
> With obj_cgroup reparenting, introduced in commit bf4f059954dc ("mm:
> memcg/slab: obj_cgroup API"), objects charged to a child memcg are
> reparented to its parent in mem_cgroup_css_offline() instead of holding
> a reference on the child until uncharged. Subsequent uncharges of those
> objects go to the parent, which can leave the child's memory use
> permanently above its high limit, so any later charge on the offlined
> memcg in non-task context schedules high_work.
>
> This problem was first exposed when commit e4dde56cd208 ("mm: multi-gen
> LRU: per-node lru_gen_folio lists") introduced the memcg LRU, and was
> later widened from kernel memory to LRU folios when
> commit f1cf8d2f36dc ("mm: memcontrol: eliminate the problem of dying
> memory cgroup for LRU folios") converted LRU folios to use obj_cgroup
> reparenting.
>
> Fix this by acquiring a reference with css_tryget_online() in
> high_work_func() before calling reclaim_high(), and by resetting
> memory.high and swap.high to PAGE_COUNTER_MAX in
> mem_cgroup_css_offline() so that charges via references on an offlined
> memcg do not trigger high_work on the dead child or skip checking live
> ancestors in try_charge_memcg().
>
> Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN NOPTI
> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
> CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 27 Comm: kworker/1:0 Tainted: G B W 7.3.0-rc5-g2bba28e98578 #284 PREEMPT(full)
> Tainted: [B]=BAD_PAGE, [W]=WARN <- Taint from lru_gen_rotate_memcg() VM_WARN_ON_ONCE
> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.17.0-debian-1.17.0-1 04/01/2014
> Workqueue: events high_work_func
> RIP: 0010:lru_gen_rotate_memcg+0x1a3/0xe90
> Call Trace:
> <TASK>
> ? read_ctrl_pos+0x22f/0x3f0
> shrink_lruvec+0x16cb/0x1b80
> ? ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
> ? lapic_next_event+0x15/0x20
> ? clockevents_program_event+0x2bb/0x6f0
> ? lapic_next_event+0x15/0x20
> ? __pfx_shrink_lruvec+0x10/0x10
> ? __pfx_clockevents_program_event+0x10/0x10
> ? _raw_spin_lock+0x84/0xe0
> ? __pfx__raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
> ? kasan_save_stack+0x30/0x50
> ? psi_group_change+0x381/0x740
> ? __pfx_sched_clock_cpu+0x10/0x10
> ? save_fpregs_to_fpstate+0xc4/0x2c0
> ? finish_task_switch.isra.0+0x1de/0xac0
> ? __schedule+0xf62/0x42c0
> ? __pfx___schedule+0x10/0x10
> ? __pfx___irq_work_queue_local+0x10/0x10
> ? shrink_node+0x626/0x31e0
> shrink_node+0x626/0x31e0
> ? ring_buffer_unlock_commit+0x11d/0x5c0
> ? kswapd_clear_hopeless+0xa0/0x150
> ? __pfx_shrink_node+0x10/0x10
> ? 0xffffffffc0000095
> do_try_to_free_pages+0x255/0x13b0
> ? ring_buffer_unlock_commit+0x11d/0x5c0
> ? reclaim_high+0x10a/0x1b0
> try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages+0x1f9/0x5a0
> ? __pfx_try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages+0x10/0x10
> ? irqentry_exit+0xc6/0x670
> reclaim_high+0x10a/0x1b0
> ? __pfx_reclaim_high+0x10/0x10
> ? process_one_work+0x5ff/0x1030
> ? __pfx_high_work_func+0x10/0x10
> process_one_work+0x6e2/0x1030
> ? __pfx___schedule+0x10/0x10
> ? __pfx_process_one_work+0x10/0x10
> worker_thread+0x422/0xbb0
> ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
> kthread+0x2cd/0x3a0
> ? recalc_sigpending+0x15c/0x200
> ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> ret_from_fork+0x368/0x590
> ? __pfx_ret_from_fork+0x10/0x10
> ? __switch_to+0x588/0xf50
> ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
> </TASK>
>
> Fixes: e4dde56cd208 ("mm: multi-gen LRU: per-node lru_gen_folio lists")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: T.J. Mercier <tjmercier@google.com>
> ---
> Changes since V1 (https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261023222313.3979455-1-tjmercier@google.com/)
> - Switch to Fixes: e4dde56cd208 ("mm: multi-gen LRU: per-node lru_gen_folio lists")
> from Fixes: f1cf8d2f36dc ("mm: memcontrol: eliminate the problem of dying memory cgroup for LRU folios")
> per Muchun Song.
> - Reorder and update commit message content to describe reparenting
> separately from the commits that exposed and then widened the problem.
> - Trim the backtrace a bit.
>
> mm/memcontrol.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index a05d9a8baa1b..84f4a8fd4d16 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2457,7 +2457,10 @@ static void high_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>
> memcg = container_of(work, struct mem_cgroup, high_work);
> + if (!css_tryget_online(&memcg->css))
> + return;
> reclaim_high(memcg, MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH, GFP_KERNEL);
The patch is correct but I think there are two very specific subtleties which
the commit message is not very explicit about.
First, I was wondering shouldn't we take reference before schedule_work() and
why this is safe. This is safe due to cancel_work_sync() in the
mem_cgroup_css_free() which will not free memcg until this there is no high
worker.
Second, cgroup core calls css_free() after percpu_ref_exit(). So, is it safe to
call css_tryget_online() on such css->refcnt. Yes css_tryget_online() is safe
but css_tryget() is not safe.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-28 22:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-28 18:35 [PATCH v2] mm: memcontrol: fix NULL pointer deref from high_work_func() on dying memcg T.J. Mercier
2026-10-28 22:12 ` Johannes Weiner
2026-10-28 22:21 ` Shakeel Butt
2026-10-28 22:17 ` Shakeel Butt [this message]
2026-10-29 2:11 ` Muchun Song
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=auJyok6AZtRqNtt4@linux.dev \
--to=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tjmercier@google.com \
--cc=zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.