linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] kernel/trace:check the val against the available mem

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:   Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:35:14 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-patch-test@...ts.linaro.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kernel/trace:check the val against the available mem

On Tue 03-04-18 08:23:48, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:16:14 +0200
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > > This came up because there's scripts or programs that set the size of
> > > the ring buffer. The complaint was that the application would just set
> > > the size to something bigger than what was available and cause an OOM
> > > killing other applications. The final solution is to simply check the
> > > available memory before allocating the ring buffer:
> > > 
> > > 	/* Check if the available memory is there first */
> > > 	i = si_mem_available();
> > > 	if (i < nr_pages)
> > > 		return -ENOMEM;
> > > 
> > > And it works well.  
> > 
> > Except that it doesn't work. si_mem_available is not really suitable for
> > any allocation estimations. Its only purpose is to provide a very rough
> > estimation for userspace. Any other use is basically abuse. The
> > situation can change really quickly. Really it is really hard to be
> > clever here with the volatility the memory allocations can cause.
> 
> OK, then what do you suggest? Because currently, it appears to work. A
> rough estimate may be good enough.
> 
> If we use NORETRY, then we have those that complain that we do not try
> hard enough to reclaim memory. If we use RETRY_MAYFAIL we have this
> issue of taking up all memory before we get what we want.

Just try to do what admin asks for and trust it will not try to shoot
his foot? I mean there are other ways admin can shoot the machine down.
Being clever is OK if it doesn't add a tricky code. And relying on
si_mem_available is definitely tricky and obscure.

> Perhaps I should try to allocate a large group of pages with
> RETRY_MAYFAIL, and if that fails go back to NORETRY, with the thinking
> that the large allocation may reclaim some memory that would allow the
> NORETRY to succeed with smaller allocations (one page at a time)?

That again relies on a subtle dependencies of the current
implementation. So I would rather ask whether this is something that
really deserves special treatment. If admin asks for a buffer of a
certain size then try to do so. If we get OOM then bad luck you cannot
get large memory buffers for free...
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs