From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Hui Zhu" <hui.zhu@linux.dev>
Cc: mkoutny@suse.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] mm/bpf: Add bpf_try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages kfunc
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2026 07:23:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260807072351.74BF11F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5cd3efa9a4c614ba0b03cf4a3bd459dea67a9f61.1786086076.git.zhuhui@kylinos.cn>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Recursive invocation of try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() via bpf_try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() clobbers current->reclaim_state, leading to a kernel crash or corrupted slab reclaim accounting.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] mm/bpf: Add bpf_try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages kfunc ---
commit df416a25d32f502ac37a07ea5346f80fe7a52345
Author: Hui Zhu <zhuhui@kylinos.cn>
mm/bpf: Add bpf_try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages kfunc
This commit exposes the memory cgroup reclaim interface to BPF programs by
adding the bpf_try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages kfunc. The wrapper translates
the swappiness argument before delegating to the core reclaim path.
> diff --git a/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c b/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
> index 716df49d76477..3f7a5c97e1355 100644
> --- a/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -159,6 +160,61 @@ __bpf_kfunc void bpf_mem_cgroup_flush_stats(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> mem_cgroup_flush_stats(memcg);
> }
>
> +/**
> + * bpf_try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages - attempt to reclaim pages from
[ ... ]
> + */
> +__bpf_kfunc unsigned long
> +bpf_try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> + unsigned long nr_pages,
> + gfp_t gfp_mask,
> + unsigned int reclaim_options,
> + int swappiness)
> +{
[Severity: High]
If this kfunc is called from a sleepable BPF program that was triggered during
memory reclaim (e.g., via an fentry hook on a function like shrink_slab), could
it corrupt the reclaim state and crash the kernel?
Looking at the underlying try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() in mm/vmscan.c, it
unconditionally overwrites current->reclaim_state and sets it to NULL upon
return:
set_task_reclaim_state(current, &sc.reclaim_state);
...
nr_reclaimed = do_try_to_free_pages(zonelist, &sc);
...
set_task_reclaim_state(current, NULL);
If the outer reclaim path resumes and attempts to dereference
current->reclaim_state (such as in set_mm_walk() or clear_mm_walk() in MGLRU),
wouldn't it hit a fatal NULL pointer dereference?
Should there be a mechanism here to prevent nested reclaim calls, or should the
underlying function save and restore the previous reclaim state?
> + int *swapiness_ptr;
> +
> + if (swappiness > SWAPPINESS_ANON_ONLY)
> + return 0;
> + else if (swappiness < MIN_SWAPPINESS)
> + swapiness_ptr = NULL;
> + else
> + swapiness_ptr = &swappiness;
> +
> + return try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, nr_pages, gfp_mask,
> + reclaim_options, swapiness_ptr);
> +}
> +
> __bpf_kfunc_end_defs();
[ ... ]
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/cover.1786086076.git.zhuhui@kylinos.cn?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-07 7:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-07 7:01 [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] bpf: BPF-driven proactive memcg reclaim Hui Zhu
2026-08-07 7:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] mm/bpf: Add bpf_try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages kfunc Hui Zhu
2026-08-07 7:23 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-07 7:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] bpf: add bpf_thread_wq kthread-backed workqueue with cgroup placement Hui Zhu
2026-08-07 7:42 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-07 7:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] selftests/bpf: add thread_wq cgroup test Hui Zhu
2026-08-07 7:19 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-07 7:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: add memcg async reclaim test for bpf_wq/bpf_thread_wq Hui Zhu
2026-08-07 7:30 ` sashiko-bot
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=20260807072351.74BF11F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hui.zhu@linux.dev \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox