linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memcg: fix memcg_cache_name() to use cgroup

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: <20130322094832.GG31457@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:48:32 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: fix memcg_cache_name() to use cgroup_name()

On Fri 22-03-13 13:41:40, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 01:31 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 22-03-13 12:22:23, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >> On 03/22/2013 12:17 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
> >>>> GFP_TEMPORARY groups short lived allocations but the mem cache is not
> >>>>> an ideal candidate of this type of allocations..
> >>>>>
> >>> I'm not sure I'm following you...
> >>>
> >>> char *memcg_cache_name()
> >>> {
> >>> 	char *name = alloc();
> >>> 	return name;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> kmem_cache_dup()
> >>> {
> >>> 	name = memcg_cache_name();
> >>> 	kmem_cache_create_memcg(name);
> >>> 	free(name);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Isn't this a short lived allocation?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Thanks for identifying and fixing this.
> >>
> >> Li is right. The cache name will live long, but this is because the
> >> slab/slub caches will strdup it internally. So the actual memcg
> >> allocation is short lived.
> > 
> > OK, I have totally missed that. Sorry about the confusion. Then all the
> > churn around the allocation is pointless, no?
> > What about:
> 
> If we're really not concerned about stack, then yes. Even if always
> running from workqueues, a PAGE_SIZEd stack variable seems risky to me.

This is not on stack. It is static

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/