linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: fix negative commitlimit when gigantic hugepages are allocated

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:	Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:11:55 -0300
From:	Rafael Aquini <aquini@...ux.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Russ Anderson <rja@....com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, rja@...ricas.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix negative commitlimit when gigantic hugepages are
 allocated

Howdy Andrew,

Sorry, for this late reply.

On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 04:44:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:55:57 -0300
> Rafael Aquini <aquini@...ux.com> wrote:
> 
> > When 1GB hugepages are allocated on a system, free(1) reports
> > less available memory than what really is installed in the box.
> > Also, if the total size of hugepages allocated on a system is
> > over half of the total memory size, CommitLimit becomes
> > a negative number.
> > 
> > The problem is that gigantic hugepages (order > MAX_ORDER)
> > can only be allocated at boot with bootmem, thus its frames
> > are not accounted to 'totalram_pages'. However,  they are
> > accounted to hugetlb_total_pages()
> > 
> > What happens to turn CommitLimit into a negative number
> > is this calculation, in fs/proc/meminfo.c:
> > 
> >         allowed = ((totalram_pages - hugetlb_total_pages())
> >                 * sysctl_overcommit_ratio / 100) + total_swap_pages;
> > 
> > A similar calculation occurs in __vm_enough_memory() in mm/mmap.c.
> > 
> > Also, every vm statistic which depends on 'totalram_pages' will render
> > confusing values, as if system were 'missing' some part of its memory.
> 
> Is this bug serious enough to justify backporting the fix into -stable
> kernels?

Despite not having testing it, I can think the following scenario as
troublesome:
When gigantic hugepages are allocated and sysctl_overcommit_memory == OVERCOMMIT_NEVER.
In a such situation, __vm_enough_memory() goes through the mentioned 'allowed'
calculation and might end up mistakenly returning -ENOMEM, thus forcing
the system to start reclaiming pages earlier than it would be ususal, and this could
cause detrimental impact to overall system's performance, depending on the
workload.

Besides the aforementioned scenario, I can only think of this causing annoyances
with memory reports from /proc/meminfo and free(1).

Thanks for your attention!

Cheers!
-- 
Rafael Aquini <aquini@...ux.com>
--
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/