linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/11] protect architectures where THREAD_SIZE >= PAGE

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: <4FE9765D.2050301@parallels.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:44:13 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] protect architectures where THREAD_SIZE >= PAGE_SIZE
 against fork bombs

On 06/26/2012 12:45 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/thread_info.h b/include/linux/thread_info.h
>>>> index ccc1899..914ec07 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/thread_info.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/thread_info.h
>>>> @@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ extern long do_no_restart_syscall(struct restart_block
>>>> *parm);
>>>>    # define THREADINFO_GFP		(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOTRACK)
>>>>    #endif
>>>>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM
>>>> +# define THREADINFO_GFP_ACCOUNTED (THREADINFO_GFP | __GFP_KMEMCG)
>>>> +#else
>>>> +# define THREADINFO_GFP_ACCOUNTED (THREADINFO_GFP)
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +
>>>
>>> This type of requirement is going to become nasty very quickly if nobody
>>> can use __GFP_KMEMCG without testing for CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM.
>>> Perhaps define __GFP_KMEMCG to be 0x0 if it's not enabled, similar to how
>>> kmemcheck does?
>>>
>> That is what I've done in my first version of this patch. At that time,
>> Christoph wanted it to be this way so we would make sure it would never be
>> used with #CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM defined. A value of zero will
>> generate no errors. Undefined value will.
>>
>> Now, if you ask me, I personally prefer following what kmemcheck does here...
>>
>
> Right, because I'm sure that __GFP_KMEMCG will be used in additional
> places outside of this patchset and it will be a shame if we have to
> always add #ifdef's.  I see no reason why we would care if __GFP_KMEMCG
> was used when CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM=n with the semantics that it
> as in this patchset.  It's much cleaner by making it 0x0 when disabled.
>

What I can do, instead, is to WARN_ON conditionally to the config option 
in the page allocator, and make sure no one is actually passing the flag 
in that case.

--
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/