> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 4deda3362..104c9e930 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@
>  #include <net/ip.h>
>  #include "slab.h"
>  #include "memcontrol-v1.h"
> +#include "memcontrol_bpf.h"
>
>  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>
> @@ -2301,13 +2302,14 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, 
> gfp_t gfp_mask,
>       int nr_retries = MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
>       struct mem_cgroup *mem_over_limit;
>       struct page_counter *counter;
> -     unsigned long nr_reclaimed;
> +     unsigned long nr_reclaime, nr_reclaimed;
>       bool passed_oom = false;
>       unsigned int reclaim_options = MEMCG_RECLAIM_MAY_SWAP;
>       bool drained = false;
>       bool raised_max_event = false;
>       unsigned long pflags;
>       bool allow_spinning = gfpflags_allow_spinning(gfp_mask);
> +     bool charge_done = false;
>
>  retry:
>       if (consume_stock(memcg, nr_pages))
> @@ -2320,20 +2322,30 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, 
> gfp_t gfp_mask,
>       if (!do_memsw_account() ||
>           page_counter_try_charge(&memcg->memsw, batch, &counter)) {
>               if (page_counter_try_charge(&memcg->memory, batch, &counter))
> -                     goto done_restock;
> -             if (do_memsw_account())
> -                     page_counter_uncharge(&memcg->memsw, batch);
> -             mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_counter(counter, memory);
> +                     charge_done = true;
> +             else {
> +                     if (do_memsw_account())
> +                             page_counter_uncharge(&memcg->memsw, batch);
> +                     mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_counter(counter, 
> memory);
> +             }
>       } else {
>               mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_counter(counter, memsw);
>               reclaim_options &= ~MEMCG_RECLAIM_MAY_SWAP;
>       }
>
> -     if (batch > nr_pages) {
> +     if (!charge_done && batch > nr_pages) {
>               batch = nr_pages;
>               goto retry;
>       }
>
> +     nr_reclaime = bpf_try_charge_memcg(memcg, gfp_mask, nr_pages,
> +                                        mem_over_limit,
> +                                        reclaim_options,
> +                                        charge_done);
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^

When charge succeeds (charge_done = true), mem_over_limit is never
initialized but gets passed to bpf_try_charge_memcg(). Looking at
memcontrol_bpf.h, the BPF verifier allows read access to all fields
in struct try_charge_memcg via bpf_tracing_btf_ctx_access() (only
write access to nr_pages is restricted by memcg_ops_btf_struct_access).

Can the BPF program read this uninitialized pointer value? This would
leak kernel stack data to the BPF program.

> +
> +     if (charge_done)
> +             goto done_restock;

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol_bpf.h b/mm/memcontrol_bpf.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..ee2815fc3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol_bpf.h

[ ... ]

> +static inline unsigned long
> +bpf_try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> +                  gfp_t gfp_mask,
> +                  unsigned int nr_pages,
> +                  struct mem_cgroup *mem_over_limit,
> +                  unsigned int reclaim_options,
> +                  bool charge_done)
> +{
> +     struct memcg_ops *ops;
> +     struct try_charge_memcg tcm;
> +     int update_nr_pages;
> +
> +     if (likely(!static_branch_unlikely(&memcg_bpf_enable)))
> +             goto out;
> +
> +     ops = memcg_ops_get();
> +     if (unlikely(!ops))
> +             goto out;
> +
> +     tcm.memcg = memcg;
> +     tcm.gfp_mask = gfp_mask;
> +     tcm.nr_pages = nr_pages;
> +     tcm.mem_over_limit = mem_over_limit;
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here mem_over_limit gets copied into the tcm struct, which is then
passed to the BPF program at the line below.

> +     tcm.reclaim_options = reclaim_options;
> +     tcm.charge_done = charge_done;
> +
> +     update_nr_pages = ops->try_charge_memcg(&tcm);

[ ... ]


---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md

CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/19486904708

Reply via email to