linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: limit maximum concurrent coredumps

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20100621184116.92f85696.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:41:16 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	Edward Allcutt <edward@...cutt.me.uk>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: limit maximum concurrent coredumps

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:23:03 -0700 (PDT) Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> wrote:

> A core dump is just an instance of a process suddenly reading lots of its
> address space and doing lots of filesystem writes, producing the kinds of
> thrashing that any such instance might entail.  It really seems like the
> real solution to this kind of problem will be in some more general kind of
> throttling of processes (or whatever manner of collections thereof) when
> they got hog-wild on page-ins or filesystem writes, or whatever else.  I'm
> not trying to get into the details of what that would be.  But I have to
> cite this hack as the off-topic kludge that it really is.  That said, I do
> certainly sympathize with the desire for a quick hack that addresses the
> scenario you experience.

yup.

> For the case you described, it seems to me that constraining concurrency
> per se would be better than punting core dumps when too concurrent.  That
> is, you should not skip the dump when you hit the limit.  Rather, you
> should block in do_coredump() until the next dump already in progress
> finishes.  (It should be possible to use TASK_KILLABLE so that those dumps
> in waiting can be aborted with a follow-on SIGKILL.  But Oleg will have to
> check on the signals details being right for that.)

yup.

Might be able to use semaphores for this.  Use sema_init(),
down_killable() and up().

Modifying the max concurrency value would require a loop of up()s and
down()s, probably all surrounded by a mutex_lock.  Which is a bit ugly,
and should be done in kernel/semaphore.c I guess.

> That won't make your crashers each complete quickly, but it will prevent
> the thrashing.  Instead of some crashers suddenly not producing dumps at
> all, they'll just all queue up waiting to finish crashing but not using any
> CPU or IO resources.  That way you don't lose any core dumps unless you
> want to start SIGKILL'ing things (which oom_kill might do if need be),
> you just don't die in flames trying to do nothing but dump cores.

A global knob is a bit old-school.  Perhaps it should be a per-memcg
knob or something.



otoh, one could perhaps toss all these tasks into a blkio_cgroup and
solve this problem with the block IO controller.  After all, that's
what it's for.

--
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/