linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2] mm: Account pud page tables

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

Date:   Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:53:05 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] mm: Account pud page tables

On Mon 25-09-17 16:07:15, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 01:54:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 25-09-17 10:39:13, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > On machine with 5-level paging support a process can allocate
> > > significant amount of memory and stay unnoticed by oom-killer and
> > > memory cgroup. The trick is to allocate a lot of PUD page tables.
> > > We don't account PUD page tables, only PMD and PTE.
> > > 
> > > We already addressed the same issue for PMD page tables, see
> > > dc6c9a35b66b ("mm: account pmd page tables to the process").
> > > Introduction 5-level paging bring the same issue for PUD page tables.
> > > 
> > > The patch expands accounting to PUD level.
> > 
> > OK, we definitely need this or something like that but I really do not
> > like how much code we actually need for each pte level for accounting.
> > Do we really need to distinguish each level? Do we have any arch that
> > would use a different number of pages to back pte/pmd/pud?
> 
> Looks like we actually do. At least on mips. See PMD_ORDER/PUD_ORDER.

Hmm, but then oom_badness does consider them a single page which is
wrong. I haven't checked other users. Anyway even if we've had different
sizes why cannot we deal with this in callers. They know which level of
page table they allocate/free, no?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs