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]
Date:	Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:49:07 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"lee.schermerhorn@...com" <lee.schermerhorn@...com>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 20/22] vmscan: avoid multiplication overflow in
 shrink_zone()

On Fri, 1 May 2009 09:22:12 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 06:08:55AM +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > Local variable `scan' can overflow on zones which are larger than
> > 
> > 	(2G * 4k) / 100 = 80GB.
> > 
> > Making it 64-bit on 64-bit will fix that up.
> 
> A side note about the "one HUGE scan inside shrink_zone":
> 
> Isn't this low level scan granularity way tooooo large?
> 
> It makes things a lot worse on memory pressure:
> - the over reclaim, somehow workarounded by Rik's early bail out patch
> - the throttle_vm_writeout()/congestion_wait() guards could work in a
>   very sparse manner and hence is useless: imagine to stop and wait
>   after shooting away every 1GB memory.
> 
> The long term fix could be to move the granularity control up to the
> shrink_zones() level: there it can bail out early without hurting the
> balanced zone aging.
> 

I guess it could be bad in some circumstances.  Normally we'll bail out
way early because (nr_reclaimed > swap_cluster_max) comes true.  If it
_doesn't_ come true, we have little choice but to keep scanning.


The code is mystifying:

: 	for_each_evictable_lru(l) {
: 		int file = is_file_lru(l);
: 		unsigned long scan;
: 
: 		scan = zone_nr_pages(zone, sc, l);
: 		if (priority) {
: 			scan >>= priority;
: 			scan = (scan * percent[file]) / 100;
: 		}
: 		if (scanning_global_lru(sc)) {
: 			zone->lru[l].nr_scan += scan;

Here we increase zone->lru[l].nr_scan by (say) 1000000.

: 			nr[l] = zone->lru[l].nr_scan;

locally save away the number of pages to scan

: 			if (nr[l] >= swap_cluster_max)
: 				zone->lru[l].nr_scan = 0;

err, wot?  This makes no sense at all afacit.

: 			else
: 				nr[l] = 0;

ok, this is doing some batching I think.

: 		} else
: 			nr[l] = scan;

so we didn't update the zone's nr_scan at all here.  But we display
nr_scan in /proc/zoneinfo as "scanned".  So we're filing to inform
userspace about scanning on this zone which is due to memcgroup
constraints.  I think.

: 	}
: 
: 	while (nr[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] || nr[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] ||
: 					nr[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE]) {
: 		for_each_evictable_lru(l) {
: 			if (nr[l]) {
: 				nr_to_scan = min(nr[l], swap_cluster_max);
: 				nr[l] -= nr_to_scan;
: 
: 				nr_reclaimed += shrink_list(l, nr_to_scan,
: 							    zone, sc, priority);
: 			}
: 		}
: 		/*
: 		 * On large memory systems, scan >> priority can become
: 		 * really large. This is fine for the starting priority;
: 		 * we want to put equal scanning pressure on each zone.
: 		 * However, if the VM has a harder time of freeing pages,
: 		 * with multiple processes reclaiming pages, the total
: 		 * freeing target can get unreasonably large.
: 		 */
: 		if (nr_reclaimed > swap_cluster_max &&
: 			priority < DEF_PRIORITY && !current_is_kswapd())
: 			break;

here we bale out after scanning 32 pages, without updating ->nr_scan.

: 	}


What on earth does zone->lru[l].nr_scan mean after wending through all
this stuff?

afacit this will muck up /proc/zoneinfo, but nothing else.

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ