linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][BUGFIX] vmscan: limit VM

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:33:58 +0100 (BST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	stable@...nel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Elladan <elladan@...imo.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][BUGFIX] vmscan: limit VM_EXEC protection to file pages

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Wu Fengguang wrote:

> It is possible to have !Anon but SwapBacked pages, and some apps could
> create huge number of such pages with MAP_SHARED|MAP_ANONYMOUS. These
> pages go into the ANON lru list, and hence shall not be protected: we
> only care mapped executable files. Failing to do so may trigger OOM.
> 
> Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>

I'm not going to stand against this patch.  But I would like to point
out that it will "penalize" (well, no longer favour) executables being
run from a tmpfs.  Probably not a big deal.

And I want to put on record that (like Andrea) I really loathe this
(vm_flags & VM_EXEC) test: it's a heuristic unlike any other in page
reclaim, and one that is open to any application writer to take unfair
advantage of.

I know that it's there to make some things work better, and that it
has been successful (though now inevitably it's found to require a
tweak - how long until its next tweak?).  But I do hope that one
day you will come up with something much more satisfactory here.

Hugh

> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- linux.orig/mm/vmscan.c	2009-10-13 09:49:05.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux/mm/vmscan.c	2009-10-13 09:49:37.000000000 +0800
> @@ -1356,7 +1356,7 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned 
>  			 * IO, plus JVM can create lots of anon VM_EXEC pages,
>  			 * so we ignore them here.
>  			 */
> -			if ((vm_flags & VM_EXEC) && !PageAnon(page)) {
> +			if ((vm_flags & VM_EXEC) && page_is_file_cache(page)) {
>  				list_add(&page->lru, &l_active);
>  				continue;
>  			}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/