From: Chris Mason <clm@meta.com>
To: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@meta.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: add basic double free check
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 04:22:00 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260114122209.1075584-1-clm@meta.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251220002737.84100-1-dennis@kernel.org>
On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 16:27:37 -0800 Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org> wrote:
> This adds a basic double free check by validating the first bit of the
> allocation in alloc_map and bound_map are set. If the alloc_map bit is
> not set, then this means the area is currently unallocated. If the
> bound_map bit is not set, then we are not freeing from the beginning of
> the allocation.
Hi Dennis,
I ran mm-new through the AI review prompts, and this one was flagged:
> diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
> --- a/mm/percpu.c
> +++ b/mm/percpu.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -1285,6 +1286,11 @@ static int pcpu_free_area(struct pcpu_chunk *chunk, int off)
>
> bit_off = off / PCPU_MIN_ALLOC_SIZE;
>
> + /* check double free */
> + if (!test_bit(bit_off, chunk->alloc_map) ||
> + !test_bit(bit_off, chunk->bound_map))
> + return 0;
Does this early return corrupt pcpu_stats.nr_cur_alloc and
chunk->nr_alloc?
Looking at pcpu_free_area(), earlier in the function (before this new
check) there is a call to pcpu_stats_area_dealloc(chunk) which decrements
these counters:
static int pcpu_free_area(struct pcpu_chunk *chunk, int off)
{
...
lockdep_assert_held(&pcpu_lock);
pcpu_stats_area_dealloc(chunk); <-- decrements counters here
...
bit_off = off / PCPU_MIN_ALLOC_SIZE;
/* check double free */
if (!test_bit(bit_off, chunk->alloc_map) ||
!test_bit(bit_off, chunk->bound_map))
return 0; <-- returns without actual free
...
}
When a double-free is detected:
1. pcpu_stats_area_dealloc() runs, decrementing pcpu_stats.nr_cur_alloc
and chunk->nr_alloc
2. The check detects the double-free and returns 0
3. No actual memory is freed, but the counters are now wrong
Should pcpu_stats_area_dealloc() be moved after the double-free check,
or should there be a compensating increment on the early return path?
This could also affect percpu_stats_show() in mm/percpu-stats.c, which
uses chunk->nr_alloc via find_max_nr_alloc() to size a buffer:
buffer = vmalloc_array(2 * max_nr_alloc + 1, sizeof(int));
If nr_alloc is underreported due to this bug, the buffer may be undersized
for the actual number of allocations tracked in alloc_map, which
chunk_map_stats() iterates based on the actual bitmap contents.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-14 12:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-20 0:27 Dennis Zhou
2026-01-12 16:03 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-01-14 12:22 ` Chris Mason [this message]
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=20260114122209.1075584-1-clm@meta.com \
--to=clm@meta.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--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