linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][2/3] Account and control virtual address space allocations

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: <47DE695D.3080605@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:21:41 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
CC:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, taka@...inux.co.jp,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][2/3] Account and control virtual address space allocations

Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> +int mem_cgroup_update_as(struct mm_struct *mm, long nr_pages)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int ret = 0;
>>>> +	struct mem_cgroup *mem;
>>>> +	if (mem_cgroup_subsys.disabled)
>>>> +		return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>>>> +	mem = rcu_dereference(mm->mem_cgroup);
>>>> +	css_get(&mem->css);
>>>> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (nr_pages > 0) {
>>>> +		if (res_counter_charge(&mem->as_res, (nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE)))
>>>> +			ret = 1;
>>>> +	} else
>>>> +		res_counter_uncharge(&mem->as_res, (-nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE));
>>> No, please, no. Let's make two calls - mem_cgroup_charge_as and mem_cgroup_uncharge_as.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>> Yes, sure :)
> 
> Thanks :)
> 
>>>> @@ -1117,6 +1117,9 @@ munmap_back:
>>>>  		}
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>> +	if (mem_cgroup_update_as(mm, len >> PAGE_SHIFT))
>>>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>> Why not use existintg cap_vm_enough_memory and co?
>>>
>> I thought about it and almost used may_expand_vm(), but there is a slight catch
>> there. With cap_vm_enough_memory() or security_vm_enough_memory(), they are
>> called after total_vm has been calculated. In our case we need to keep the
>> cgroups equivalent of total_vm up to date, and we do this in mem_cgorup_update_as.
> 
> So? What prevents us from using these hooks? :)

1. We need to account total_vm usage of the task anyway. So why have two places,
   one for accounting and second for control?
2. These hooks are activated for conditionally invoked for vma's with VM_ACCOUNT
   set.


-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
--
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/