Re: [PATCH] zram: fix idle age_sec underflow in idle_store()
From: Sergey Senozhatsky
Date: Fri Aug 28 2026 - 00:24:11 EST
Adding Brian.
On (26/08/25 17:23), Hao Jia wrote:
> After commit 2e8ff2f51dde ("zram: use u32 for entry ac_time tracking"),
> idle_store() computes the idle cutoff as follows:
>
> cutoff = ktime_sub((u32)ktime_get_boottime_seconds(), age_sec);
>
> Because the left operand is cast to a 32-bit unsigned integer, when
> age_sec exceeds the current uptime, the subtraction wraps modulo 2^32
> and the huge result is zero-extended into the s64 cutoff. mark_idle()
> subsequently marks every entry as idle instead of matching nothing,
> breaking the intended semantics of /sys/block/zramX/idle. For instance,
> running echo 86400 > idle on a machine up for only two minutes causes
> all newly written pages to be marked as idle and handed over to idle
> writeback and recompression.
>
> Drop the explicit cast to perform the subtraction in signed arithmetic
> again, restoring the previous behavior: an age_sec greater than uptime
> yields a negative cutoff, and one equal to uptime yields 0. Since a
> cutoff of 0 is now a valid computed value, it can no longer double as
> the "all" sentinel. Switch to KTIME_MIN instead, which no ac_time can
> be after.
Can we instead just reject such cases? It should be an error to
request writeback of pages that are 2y old on a system that has
uptime of 2d.
Maybe something like this:
+ time64_t uptime;
- if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZRAM_TRACK_ENTRY_ACTIME) &&
- !kstrtouint(buf, 0, &age_sec))
- cutoff = ktime_sub((u32)ktime_get_boottime_seconds(),
- age_sec);
- else
+ if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZRAM_TRACK_ENTRY_ACTIME) ||
+ kstrtouint(buf, 0, &age_sec))
return -EINVAL;
+
+ /* No slot can be older than the system uptime */
+ uptime = ktime_get_boottime_seconds();
+ if (age_sec >= uptime)
+ return -ERANGE;
+
+ cutoff = uptime - age_sec;
}
We are probably fine doing just basic arithmetics operations on those two.
One is u32 the other one is s64: we should be fine just doing >= and sub.
I guess we also can use plain comparison
cutoff > zram->table[index].attr.ac_time
in mark_idle(). Or am I hallucinating?
[keeping the rest of the original patch]
> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> index a9b3bb1d3bef..da51f70b7121 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -438,7 +438,7 @@ static void mark_idle(struct zram *zram, ktime_t cutoff)
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ZRAM_TRACK_ENTRY_ACTIME
> - is_idle = !cutoff ||
> + is_idle = cutoff == KTIME_MIN ||
> ktime_after(cutoff, zram->table[index].attr.ac_time);
> #endif
> if (is_idle)
> @@ -453,7 +453,7 @@ static ssize_t idle_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> const char *buf, size_t len)
> {
> struct zram *zram = dev_to_zram(dev);
> - ktime_t cutoff = 0;
> + ktime_t cutoff = KTIME_MIN;
>
> if (!sysfs_streq(buf, "all")) {
> /*
> @@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ static ssize_t idle_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZRAM_TRACK_ENTRY_ACTIME) &&
> !kstrtouint(buf, 0, &age_sec))
> - cutoff = ktime_sub((u32)ktime_get_boottime_seconds(),
> + cutoff = ktime_sub(ktime_get_boottime_seconds(),
> age_sec);
> else
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ static ssize_t idle_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /*
> - * A cutoff of 0 marks everything as idle, this is the
> + * A cutoff of KTIME_MIN marks everything as idle, this is the
> * "all" behavior.
> */
> mark_idle(zram, cutoff);
> --
> 2.34.1
>