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: <4F5F847C.3060505@parallels.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:31:40 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
CC:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@...eBSD.org>,
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	<penberg@...nel.org>, <cl@...ux.com>, <yinghan@...gle.com>,
	<hughd@...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>, <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] memcg: Kernel memory accounting infrastructure.

On 03/13/2012 09:00 PM, Greg Thelen wrote:
> Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com>  writes:
>> 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 overcommit situations the page allocator starts failing even though
> memcg page can charge pages.
If you overcommit mem+swap, yes. If you overcommit mem, no: reclaim 
happens first. And we don't have that option with pinned kernel memory.

Of course you *can* run your system without swap, but the whole thing 
exists exactly because there is a large enough # of ppl who wants to be 
able to overcommit their physical memory, without failing allocations.

--
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/