Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: fix swap counter leak from offline cgroup

Kairui Song
2025-03-06T03:04:39Z

On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 10:54 AM Kairui Song <ryncsn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 10:32 AM Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> wrote:
> >
> > The commit 6769183166b3 has removed the parameter of id from
> > swap_cgroup_record() and get the memcg id from
> > mem_cgroup_id(folio_memcg(folio)). However, the caller of it
> > may update a different memcg's counter instead of
> > folio_memcg(folio). E.g. in the caller of mem_cgroup_swapout(),
> > @swap_memcg could be different with @memcg and update the counter
> > of @swap_memcg, but swap_cgroup_record() records the wrong memcg's
> > ID. When it is uncharged from __mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap(), the
> > swap counter will leak since the wrong recorded ID. Fix it by
> > bring the parameter of id back.
> >
> > Fixes: 6769183166b3 ("mm/swap_cgroup: decouple swap cgroup recording and clearing")
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/swap_cgroup.h | 4 ++--
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 4 ++--
> > mm/swap_cgroup.c | 7 ++++---
> > 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/swap_cgroup.h b/include/linux/swap_cgroup.h
> > index b5ec038069dab..91cdf12190a03 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/swap_cgroup.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/swap_cgroup.h
> > @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
> >
> > #if defined(CONFIG_MEMCG) && defined(CONFIG_SWAP)
> >
> > -extern void swap_cgroup_record(struct folio *folio, swp_entry_t ent);
> > +extern void swap_cgroup_record(struct folio *folio, unsigned short id, swp_entry_t ent);
> > extern unsigned short swap_cgroup_clear(swp_entry_t ent, unsigned int nr_ents);
> > extern unsigned short lookup_swap_cgroup_id(swp_entry_t ent);
> > extern int swap_cgroup_swapon(int type, unsigned long max_pages);
> > @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ extern void swap_cgroup_swapoff(int type);
> > #else
> >
> > static inline
> > -void swap_cgroup_record(struct folio *folio, swp_entry_t ent)
> > +void swap_cgroup_record(struct folio *folio, unsigned short id, swp_entry_t ent)
> > {
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index a5d870fbb4321..a5ab603806fbb 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -4988,7 +4988,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_swapout(struct folio *folio, swp_entry_t entry)
> > mem_cgroup_id_get_many(swap_memcg, nr_entries - 1);
> > mod_memcg_state(swap_memcg, MEMCG_SWAP, nr_entries);
> >
> > - swap_cgroup_record(folio, entry);
> > + swap_cgroup_record(folio, mem_cgroup_id(swap_memcg), entry);
> >
> > folio_unqueue_deferred_split(folio);
> > folio->memcg_data = 0;
> > @@ -5050,7 +5050,7 @@ int __mem_cgroup_try_charge_swap(struct folio *folio, swp_entry_t entry)
> > mem_cgroup_id_get_many(memcg, nr_pages - 1);
> > mod_memcg_state(memcg, MEMCG_SWAP, nr_pages);
> >
> > - swap_cgroup_record(folio, entry);
> > + swap_cgroup_record(folio, mem_cgroup_id(memcg), entry);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > diff --git a/mm/swap_cgroup.c b/mm/swap_cgroup.c
> > index be39078f255be..1007c30f12e2c 100644
> > --- a/mm/swap_cgroup.c
> > +++ b/mm/swap_cgroup.c
> > @@ -58,9 +58,11 @@ static unsigned short __swap_cgroup_id_xchg(struct swap_cgroup *map,
> > * entries must not have been charged
> > *
> > * @folio: the folio that the swap entry belongs to
> > + * @id: mem_cgroup ID to be recorded
> > * @ent: the first swap entry to be recorded
> > */
> > -void swap_cgroup_record(struct folio *folio, swp_entry_t ent)
> > +void swap_cgroup_record(struct folio *folio, unsigned short id,
> > + swp_entry_t ent)
> > {
> > unsigned int nr_ents = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > struct swap_cgroup *map;
> > @@ -72,8 +74,7 @@ void swap_cgroup_record(struct folio *folio, swp_entry_t ent)
> > map = swap_cgroup_ctrl[swp_type(ent)].map;
> >
> > do {
> > - old = __swap_cgroup_id_xchg(map, offset,
> > - mem_cgroup_id(folio_memcg(folio)));
> > + old = __swap_cgroup_id_xchg(map, offset, id);
> > VM_BUG_ON(old);
> > } while (++offset != end);
> > }
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >
>
> Good catch, Thanks!
>
> Reviewed-by: Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>

BTW, it need to be fixed in 6.14, no stable fix is needed, just double
checked the commit is not in 6.13.