Re: [PATCH] mm: page_counter: reject empty string in page_counter_memparse()
Michal Hocko <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kvack.linux-mm,org.kernel.vger.cgroups,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <aoQNtIRvqXRh-x4u@tiehlicka> |
On Mon 17-08-26 09:16:40, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 12:26:52PM +0800, Tao Cui wrote: > > From: Tao Cui <[email protected]> > > > > memparse() consumes no characters on an empty input and leaves the > > end pointer at the terminating NUL. The only validation in > > page_counter_memparse() checks for trailing characters, so an empty > > input slips through and the limit becomes 0. > > > > All limit write callbacks of the memory controller strstrip() the > > input before calling this helper, so a script that writes an unset > > variable hits this path: > > > > LIMIT= > > echo "$LIMIT" > $CG/memory.max > > echo $? > > 0 > > cat $CG/memory.max > > 0 > > > > Nothing reports the mistake: the limit is now 0 and the OOM killer > > goes after every task in the cgroup. The same happens for > > memory.min, memory.low, memory.high, memory.swap.high, > > memory.swap.max and memory.zswap.max, where 0 silently removes the > > protection or disables swap and zswap. > > > > Reject the input when no characters were consumed, which is the one > > case the trailing-character check cannot catch. > > > > Fixes: 3e32cb2e0a12 ("mm: memcontrol: lockless page counters") > > Signed-off-by: Tao Cui <[email protected]> > > --- > > mm/page_counter.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/page_counter.c b/mm/page_counter.c > > index 661e0f2a5127..d14db705b04f 100644 > > --- a/mm/page_counter.c > > +++ b/mm/page_counter.c > > @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ int page_counter_memparse(const char *buf, const char *max, > > } > > > > bytes = memparse(buf, &end); > > - if (*end != '\0') > > + if (*end != '\0' || end == buf) > > return -EINVAL; > > I wonder if someone started depending on this behavior. In that case it is > better to return error instead of silently ignore, so we will hear complains > loudly. This looks good to me. This is backward incompatible change and I am wondering why should we even risk regression. > Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <[email protected]> -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs