linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair

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: <20070514161224.GC11115@waste.org>
Date:	Mon, 14 May 2007 11:12:24 -0500
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 08:53:21AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > In the interest of creating a reserve based allocator; we need to make the slab
> > allocator (*sigh*, all three) fair with respect to GFP flags.
> 
> I am not sure what the point of all of this is. 
> 
> > That is, we need to protect memory from being used by easier gfp flags than it
> > was allocated with. If our reserve is placed below GFP_ATOMIC, we do not want a
> > GFP_KERNEL allocation to walk away with it - a scenario that is perfectly
> > possible with the current allocators.
> 
> Why does this have to handled by the slab allocators at all? If you have 
> free pages in the page allocator then the slab allocators will be able to 
> use that reserve.

If I understand this correctly:

privileged thread                      unprivileged greedy process
kmem_cache_alloc(...)
   adds new slab page from lowmem pool
do_io()
                                       kmem_cache_alloc(...)
                                       kmem_cache_alloc(...)
                                       kmem_cache_alloc(...)
                                       kmem_cache_alloc(...)
                                       kmem_cache_alloc(...)
                                       ...
                                          eats it all
kmem_cache_alloc(...) -> ENOMEM
   who ate my donuts?!

But I think this solution is somehow overkill. If we only care about
this issue in the OOM avoidance case, then our rank reduces to a
boolean.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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/