linux-kernel - Re: [patch 4/6] mm: merge populate and nopage into fault (fixes nonlinear)

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]

Message-Id: <1173273562.6374.175.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:19:22 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/6] mm: merge populate and nopage into fault (fixes
	nonlinear)

On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 14:08 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > > The thing is, I don't think anybody who uses these things cares
> > > about any of the 'problems' you want to fix, do they? We are
> > > interested in dirty pages only for the correctness issue, rather
> > > than performance. Same as reclaim.
> > 
> > If so, we can just stick to the dead slow but correct 'scan the full
> > vma' page_mkclean() and nobody would ever trigger it.
> 
> Not if we restricted it to root and mlocked tmpfs. But then why
> wouldn't you just do it with the much more efficient msync walk,
> so that if root does want to do writeout via these things, it does
> not blow up?

This is all used on ram based filesystems right, they all have
BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK afaik, so page_mkclean will never get called
anyway. Mlock doesn't avoid getting page_mkclean called.

Those who use this on a 'real' filesystem will get hit in the face by a
linear scanning page_mkclean(), but AFAIK nobody does this anyway.

Restricting it to root for such filesystems is unwanted, that'd severely
handicap both UML and Oracle as I understand it (are there other users
of this feature around?)

msync() might never get called and then we're back with the old
behaviour where we can surprise the VM with a ton of dirty pages.

> > What is the DoS scenario wrt reclaim? We really ought to fix that if
> > real, those UML farms run on nothing but nonlinear reclaim I'd think.
> 
> I guess you can just increase the computational complexity of
> reclaim quite easily.

Right, on first glance it doesn't look to be too bad, but I should take
a closer look.

-
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/