linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] memcg: Kernel memory accounting infrastructure.

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: <4F5F236A.1070609@parallels.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:37:30 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@...eBSD.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	<suleiman@...gle.com>, <penberg@...nel.org>, <cl@...ux.com>,
	<yinghan@...gle.com>, <hughd@...gle.com>, <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	<peterz@...radead.org>, <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
	<hannes@...xchg.org>, <mgorman@...e.de>,
	<James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<devel@...nvz.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] memcg: Kernel memory accounting infrastructure.

> After looking codes, I think we need to think
> whether independent_kmem_limit is good or not....
>
> How about adding MEMCG_KMEM_ACCOUNT flag instead of this and use only
> memcg->res/memcg->memsw rather than adding a new counter, memcg->kmem ?
>
> if MEMCG_KMEM_ACCOUNT is set     ->  slab is accoutned to mem->res/memsw.
> if MEMCG_KMEM_ACCOUNT is not set ->  slab is never accounted.
>
> (I think On/Off switch is required..)
>
> Thanks,
> -Kame
>

This has been discussed before, I can probably find it in the archives 
if you want to go back and see it.

But in a nutshell:

1) Supposing independent knob disappear (I will explain in item 2 why I 
don't want it to), I don't thing a flag makes sense either. *If* we are 
planning to enable/disable this, it might make more sense to put some 
work on it, and allow particular slabs to be enabled/disabled by writing 
to memory.kmem.slabinfo (-* would disable all, +* enable all, +kmalloc* 
enable all kmalloc, etc).

Alternatively, what we could do instead, is something similar to what 
ended up being done for tcp, by request of the network people: if you 
never touch the limit file, don't bother with it at all, and simply does 
not account. With Suleiman's lazy allocation infrastructure, that should 
actually be trivial. And then again, a flag is not necessary, because 
writing to the limit file does the job, and also convey the meaning well 
enough.

2) For the kernel itself, we are mostly concerned that a malicious 
container may pin into memory big amounts of kernel memory which is, 
ultimately, unreclaimable. In particular, with overcommit allowed 
scenarios, you can fill the whole physical memory (or at least a 
significant part) with those objects, well beyond your softlimit 
allowance, making the creation of further containers impossible.
With user memory, you can reclaim the cgroup back to its place. With 
kernel memory, you can't.

In the particular example of 32-bit boxes, you can easily fill up a 
large part of the available 1gb kernel memory with pinned memory and 
render the whole system unresponsive.

Never allowing the kernel memory to go beyond the soft limit was one of 
the proposed alternatives. However, it may force you to establish a soft
limit where one was not previously needed. Or, establish a low soft 
limit when you really need a bigger one.

All that said, while reading your message, thinking a bit, the following 
crossed my mind:

- We can account the slabs to memcg->res normally, and just store the
   information that this is kernel memory into a percpu counter, as
   I proposed recently.
- The knob goes away, and becomes implicit: if you ever write anything
   to memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes, we transfer that memory to a separate
   kmem res_counter, and proceed from there. We can keep accounting to
   memcg->res anyway, just that kernel memory will now have a separate
   limit.
- With this scheme, it may not be necessary to ever have a file
   memory.kmem.soft_limit_in_bytes. Reclaim is always part of the normal
   memcg reclaim.

The outlined above would work for us, and make the whole scheme simpler, 
I believe.

What do you think ?
--
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/