linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] memcg: Limit the number of events registered on oom

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: <20130807133746.GI8184@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:37:46 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] memcg: Limit the number of events registered on
 oom_control

On Wed 07-08-13 09:08:36, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Michal.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:28:26PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > There is no limit for the maximum number of oom_control events
> > registered per memcg. This might lead to an user triggered memory
> > depletion if a regular user is allowed to register events.
> > 
> > Let's be more strict and cap the number of events that might be
> > registered. MAX_OOM_NOTIFY_EVENTS value is more or less random. The
> > expectation is that it should be high enough to cover reasonable
> > usecases while not too high to allow excessive resources consumption.
> > 1024 events consume something like 24KB which shouldn't be a big deal
> > and it should be good enough (even 1024 oom notification events sounds
> > crazy).
> 
> I think putting restriction on usage_event makes sense as that builds
> a shared contiguous table from all events which can't be attributed
> correctly and makes it easy to trigger allocation failures due to
> large order allocation but is this necessary for oom and vmpressure,
> both of which allocate only for the listening task?

Once I was there I made them consistent in that regards.

> It isn't different from listening from epoll, for example.

epoll limits the number of watchers, no?

> If there needs to be kernel memory limit, shouldn't that be handled by
> kmemcg?

kmemcg would surely help but turning it on just because of potential
abuse of the event registration API sounds like an overkill.

I think having a cap for user trigable kernel resources is a good thing
in general.
-- 
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/