linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] Kill PF

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0911170004380.1564@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:07:44 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
cc:	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Kill PF_MEMALLOC abuse

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> 
> PF_MEMALLOC have following effects.
>   (1) Ignore zone watermark
>   (2) Don't call reclaim although allocation failure, instead return ENOMEM
>   (3) Don't invoke OOM Killer
>   (4) Don't retry internally in page alloc
> 
> Some subsystem paid attention (1) only, and start to use PF_MEMALLOC abuse.
> But, the fact is, PF_MEMALLOC is the promise of "I have lots freeable memory.
> if I allocate few memory, I can return more much meory to the system!".
> Non MM subsystem must not use PF_MEMALLOC. Memory reclaim
> need few memory, anyone must not prevent it. Otherwise the system cause
> mysterious hang-up and/or OOM Killer invokation.
> 
> if many subsystem will be able to use emergency memory without any
> usage rule, it isn't for emergency. it can become empty easily.
> 
> Plus, characteristics (2)-(4) mean PF_MEMALLOC don't fit to general
> high priority memory allocation.
> 
> Thus, We kill all PF_MEMALLOC usage in no MM subsystem.
> 

I agree in principle with removing non-VM users of PF_MEMALLOC, but I 
think it should be left to the individual subsystem maintainers to apply 
or ack since the allocations may depend on the __GFP_NORETRY | ~__GFP_WAIT 
behavior of PF_MEMALLOC.  This could be potentially dangerous for a 
PF_MEMALLOC user if allocations made by the kthread, for example, should 
never retry for orders smaller than PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER or block on 
direct reclaim.
--
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/