linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][2/3] Account and control virtual address space allocations (v2)

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: <47EB5D07.9020601@openvz.org>
Date:	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:38:31 +0300
From:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.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,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][2/3] Account and control virtual address space allocations
 (v2)

[snip]

>>>>> +	css_put(&mem->css);
>>>> Why don't you check whether the counter is charged? This is
>>>> bad for two reasons:
>>>> 1. you allow for some growth above the limit (e.g. in expand_stack)
>>> I was doing that earlier and then decided to keep the virtual address space code
>>> in sync with the RLIMIT_AS checking code in the kernel. If you see the flow, it
>>> closely resembles what we do with mm->total_vm and may_expand_vm().
>>> expand_stack() in turn calls acct_stack_growth() which calls may_expand_vm()
>> But this is racy! Look - you do expand_stack on two CPUs and the limit is
>> almost reached - so that there's room for a single expansion. In this case 
>> may_expand_vm will return true for both, since it only checks the limit, 
>> while the subsequent charge will fail on one of them, since it actually 
>> tries to raise the usage...
>>
> 
> Hmm... yes, possibly. Thanks for pointing this out. For a single mm_struct, the
> check is done under mmap_sem(), so it's OK for processes. I suspect, I'll have

Sure, but this controller should work with arbitrary group of processes ;)

> to go back to what I had earlier. I don't want to add a mutex to mem_cgroup,
> that will hurt parallelism badly.

My opinion is that we should always perform a pure charge without any
pre-checks, etc.

Thanks,
Pavel
--
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/