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: <47DE6B8D.5090302@openvz.org>
Date:	Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:01:01 +0300
From:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
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

Balbir Singh wrote:
> 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?

We still have two of them even placing hooks in each place manually.

Besides, putting the mem_cgroup_(un)charge_as() in these vm hooks will
1. save the number of places to patch
2. help keeping memcgroup consistent in case someone adds more places
   that expand tasks vm (arches, drivers) - in case we have our hooks
   celled from inside vm ones, we won't have to patch more.

> 2. These hooks are activated for conditionally invoked for vma's with VM_ACCOUNT
>    set.

This is a good point against. But, wrt my previous comment, can we handle 
this somehow?
--
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/